James Madison Project v. DOJ, No. 17-00597, 2019 WL 3430728 (D.D.C. July 30, 2019) (Mehta, J.)

James Madison Project v. DOJ, No. 17-00597, 2019 WL 3430728 (D.D.C. July 30, 2019) (Mehta, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning orders by or applications to United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court concerning Trump Organization, President Trump, President Trump's campaign for the presidency, or people associated with President Trump

Disposition: 

• Exemption 1:  The court relates that "Plaintiffs contend that [a] Press Release reflects a presidential order to declassify . . . 21 pages [at issue] . . . in full."  "Defendant asserts that '[t]here is no presidential declassification order, and the President has publicly indicated that he is not requiring declassification at this time, much less full disclosure.'"  However, the court points to a press release that "says that the President 'directed . . . the Department of Justice . . . to provide for the immediate declassification' of the Pages."  "The Release's use of the word 'direct' suggests that the President ordered the Department of Justice to declassify the Pages."  "And, while it is true that the Press Release is a statement of the Press Secretary, and not the President, . . . Defendant offers no reason to believe that the Press Release inaccurately conveys the President's 'directive.'"  "Thus, contrary to what Defendant says, it would appear that the President did make 'his intentions clear . . . to declassify information.'"  The court finds that "the agency must dispel any ambiguity."  "Defendant must establish that the Pages were not declassified in full."  "Defendant has not done so."  "Defendant should have provided some clarification about what instructions the Department of Justice received concerning the 'declassification' of the Pages' contents."  "[O]n the present record, the court cannot find that Defendant's withholding of information from the Pages was proper under FOIA Exemption 1."
   
• Exemptions 7(D) & 7(E):  The court relates that "Defendant contends that, even if it has not met its burden as to Exemption 1, it has asserted other exemptions, namely, Exemptions 7(D) or 7(E), which Plaintiffs have not challenged and serve as an independent ground to affirm the agency's withholdings."  "The court cannot presume that the President's declassification order was meant to have no practical effect."  "For that reason, there remains a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the agency here has the authority to rely on Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E)."  The court explains that "[t]he President 'directed' the Department of Justice 'to provide for the immediate declassification' of the Pages."  "Did the President narrowly mean only to 'declassify' the Pages, or did he more broadly intend to release the Pages in full, without redactions?"  "To be sure, the Press Release refers only to 'immediate declassification' and is silent as to the other applicable exemptions."  "But why would the President order declassification of the Pages, if the agency could still rely on other already-asserted exemptions to withhold the very same material?"