James Madison Project v. DOJ, No. 17-00597, 2020 WL 1033301 (D.D.C. Mar. 3, 2020) (Mehta, J.)

James Madison Project v. DOJ, No. 17-00597, 2020 WL 1033301 (D.D.C. Mar. 3, 2020) (Mehta, J.)

Re:  Request for orders by or applications to U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court concerning Trump Organization, President Trump, President Trump's campaign, or people associated with President Trump

Disposition:  Granting defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 1:  "After reviewing [defendant's] Declaration, the court is satisfied that Defendant has met its burden of establishing that the Press Release from September 17, 2018, did not constitute or reflect a presidential order to declassify the [twenty-one pages at issue]."  The court relates that "[i]n its previous opinion, the court found that [a] Press Release [stating that President Trump had directed the declassification of portions of a June 2017 Carter Page FISA application] was ambiguous as to whether it had the effect of a declassification order."  The court relates that defendant now "affirms that '[a]fter the press secretary statement was issued, ODAG personnel . . . consulted with personnel at the White House about the matters discussed in that statement, including potential declassification of certain documents related to the Carter Page FISA applications and orders,' and 'DOJ did not receive at any time a declassification order related to the materials remaining at issue in this case.'"  "Further, [defendant] explains, in May 2019, the President delegated to the Attorney General of the United States the authority to 'declassify documents as part of his ongoing review of intelligence activities relating to the campaigns in the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters,' and to date, 'the Attorney General has not exercised that declassification authority over the materials at issue in this case.'"  The court finds that "DOJ's declaration now makes clear that the Press Release was not a declassification order."
   
• Litigation Considerations:  The court relates that "[a]s a consequence of Plaintiffs having 'confined' their arguments, the court wrote in its earlier opinion that 'Defendant's continued redaction of 21 of the 412 pages is the sole contested issue in the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.'"  "Plaintiffs never sought to disabuse the court of the notion that the 'sole contested issue' pertained to redaction of the Pages – until now."  "Plaintiffs had every opportunity to oppose and cross-move as to any and all issues raised in Defendant’s original motion for summary judgment, or as to any other issue they wished."  "They chose instead to contest only one discrete issue."  "Plaintiffs cannot now revive what they long ago abandoned."