Organized Cmtys. Against Deportations v. ICE, No. 21-2519, 2024 WL 3848549 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2024) (Blakey, J.)

Organized Cmtys. Against Deportations v. ICE, No. 21-2519, 2024 WL 3848549 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2024) (Blakey, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning “Citizens Academy” programs

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

• Exemption 6:  The court holds that “ICE properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold and redact program participants’ names and employment information.”  The court relates that “ICE applied Exemption 6 to withhold from disclosure the names, contact information, office numbers, initials, social security numbers, and other personally identifiable information of third-party individuals, including Citizens Academy participants, and ICE employees.”  “Plaintiffs specifically contest ICE's application of Exemption 6 to [identifying information about Citizens Academy participants].”  “Here, the Court finds that ICE has sufficiently invoked Exemption 6 to redact the third-party individuals’ names and employment information.”  “[Defendant’s] Declaration asserts that ICE identified strong privacy interests in withholding this information to protect the third-party individuals from harm, identity theft, and unwanted contact from persons seeking to harm them.”  “The Declaration further identifies privacy interests in program participants ‘not being publicly associated with law enforcement organizations’ given the ‘stigmatizing connotation carried by the mere mention of individuals in law enforcement files.’”  “Balancing these privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure, ICE concluded that disclosure ‘would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’”  “[Defendant’s] Vaughn index specifies that the disclosure of the names and personal identifying information of third-parties in this document implicates those individuals’ ‘personal privacy interests’ in ‘not being associated unwarrantedly with alleged criminal activity; being free from harassment, criticism, intimidation, legal consequences, economic reprisals, embarrassment, undue public attention, physical harm, and derogatory inferences and suspicion; and controlling how communications about them are communicated to others.’”  “ICE determined, according to the index, that disclosure of this information ‘would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying out its statutory responsibilities.’”  “Despite some speculative assertions in the ICE materials, the record still confirms the existence of cognizable privacy interests under Exemption 6 and, having reviewed the representative sample of documents provided, the Court finds the asserted privacy interests legitimate.”  “That these individuals ‘volunteer’ to participate in Citizens Academy programs generally does not undermine these interests.” 
  
  Additionally, the court finds that “Plaintiffs have not explained exactly how disclosure of this information would assist the public in understanding how ICE carries out its statutory responsibilities.”  “Nonetheless, to the extent a public interest might be implicated in knowing the employers ICE sought for its Citizen Academy programs, the interest is far outweighed by the identified privacy interests at stake, such that disclosure of the information ICE has withheld under Exemption 6 would constitute a ‘clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.’”
   
• Exemption 7(E):  The court holds that, “[h]ere, ICE easily clears [the] low bar [for] invoking Exemption 7(E) to withhold ‘law enforcement sensitive information,’ including ‘the . . . methods that ICE uses to conduct operations,’ and ‘detailed information on how the techniques and procedures are currently used.’”  “[Defendant’s] Declaration specifies that the redacted documents contain sensitive information ‘utilized by law enforcement to further ICE’s obligation to enforce the immigration laws,’ specifically, information regarding ICE’s methods for removal operations.”  “The Declaration explains that disclosure of this information ‘could assist third parties in circumventing the law’ because ‘bad actors could use this information to evade removal’ and individuals could use this information to ‘adversely affect law enforcement operations or engage [in] activity that would sacrifice the safety of both ICE employees and the public at large.’”
  
  “Plaintiffs challenge ICE’s use of Exemption 7(E) to withhold the techniques and procedures it shares with Citizens Academy participants, arguing that ICE has not shown that the techniques or procedures remain unavailable to the public or explained how, if disclosed, such information could lead to circumvention of law.”  “Plaintiffs contend that the withheld information is ‘known to many members of the public’ because it is voluntarily shared with civilian participants of Citizens Academy programs.”  “And even if ICE’s use of the exemption would otherwise be valid, Plaintiffs claim that ICE’s voluntary disclosure of these techniques waives its right to invoke this FOIA exemption.”  “ICE counters that there is a difference between voluntarily disclosing certain law enforcement techniques to ‘people who were approved to participate in an ICE program after undergoing a background check’ and disclosing techniques ‘to the general public.’”  “The Court again agrees with ICE; the agency’s previous disclosure of its techniques to a limited group of approved persons who undergo background checks in no way undermines or waives its demonstrated privacy interests in not disclosing this information to the public generally.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, “Reasonably Segregable” Showing:  The court notes that “Plaintiffs do not challenge the presumption that ICE complied with its obligation to disclose reasonably segregable material, and the Court finds that ICE has satisfied that duty.”  “[Defendant] indicates that ICE conducted a line-by-line review of the withheld documents ‘to identify information exempt from disclosure or for which a discretionary waiver for an exemption could be applied.’”  “[It] further states that ICE segregated ‘all information not exempted from disclosure pursuant to the FOIA exemptions’ and released non-exempt portions.”  “ICE also did not withhold any information as ‘non-segregable.’”  “Moreover, ICE’s Vaughn index describes each document withheld in full or in part, describes the information withheld, and explains with sufficient particularity the agency’s reasons for withholding that information.”  “As a result, ICE has complied with its segregability obligations under FOIA.”