Skip to main content

Heritage Found. v. DHS, No. 23-01198, 2024 WL 4263929 (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2024) (Nichols, J.)

Date

Heritage Found. v. DHS, No. 23-01198, 2024 WL 4263929 (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2024) (Nichols, J.)

Re: Request for certain immigration records concerning the Duke of Sussex

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment

  • Exemption 6; Exemption 7(C):  “[T]he Court grants the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”      Regarding the privacy interests at issue, the court relates that “[plaintiff] acknowledges that the Duke has a privacy interest in his ‘health information or financial information or family relationships.’”  “But, [plaintiff] argues, he has a limited (if any) privacy interest regarding his drug use and his immigration records, given what is already publicly known . . . .”  “As [plaintiff] puts it, the ‘Duke of Sussex’s Netflix series and [memoir] expressly detail the timing and manner of his entry to take up residence and the details of his decision to maintain residence in the United States.’”  “And in his various media appearances, [plaintiff] argues, the Duke gave ‘a startlingly candid and comprehensive account of his illegal drug use.’”  The court finds that “[plaintiff] is partially correct that as a public figure, the Duke’s public statements tend to diminish his privacy interests compared to ordinary foreign nationals admitted to the United States.”      “But it goes too far in arguing that that privacy interest is so diminished by his public statements as to be de minimis.”  “Like any foreign national, the Duke has a legitimate privacy interest in his immigration status.”  “And the Duke’s public statements about his travel and drug use did not disclose, and therefore did not eliminate his interest in keeping private, specific information regarding his immigration status, applications, or other materials.”  “In particular, the summary judgment record reflects that the Duke has never disclosed publicly (among other things) [certain facts that the court has redacted from the opinion].”  “That is the ‘type of information that a person would ordinarily not wish to make known about himself,’ . . . and therefore the government has demonstrated that the Duke retains a privacy interest in these records.”

    Regarding the public interests at issue, the court finds that “[plaintiff’s] first argument is based on its contention that in March 2020 the Duke entered the United States either by disclosing his past drug use (and was admitted inappropriately) or failing to disclose his past drug use.”  “As [plaintiff] puts it, ‘[I]f the records fail to shed light on those questions, or show that in fact the expected impropriety did not occur then the case immediately is at an end; there is no need to evaluate the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ asserted public interest or conduct the complex balancing inquiry.’” “‘Judgement may simply be entered for Defendant.’”  “[Plaintiff’s] second argument – that the records will help the public better understand how the Department conducts itself and how its officials exercise discretion – also fails.”  “Public disclosure of records about a single admission of a foreign national in the circumstances described above would provide the public, at best, limited information about the Department’s general policy in admitting aliens.”  “And the marginal public benefit of knowing that limited information is outweighed by the privacy interest the Duke retains in his immigration status and records.”  “The public’s interest in disclosure ‘is not fostered by disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various governmental files but that reveals little or nothing about an agency’s own conduct.’”
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 6
Exemption 7(C)
Updated November 5, 2024