Tex. Pub. Pol’y Found. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 24-50189, 2025 WL 1287890 (5th Cir. May 5, 2025) (Wilson, J.)

Tex. Pub. Pol’y Found. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 24-50189, 2025 WL 1287890 (5th Cir. May 5, 2025) (Wilson, J.)

Re:  Request concerning “target of ‘a 50–52 percent reduction from 2005 levels in economy-wide net greenhouse gas pollution’ by 2030”

Disposition:  Reversing and remanding district court’s grant of government’s motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6:  The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit first notes that “it is unnecessary for [it] to determine whether the emails at issue are similar to personnel and medical files for purposes of Exemption 6.”  “Even assuming they are ‘similar files,’ disclosure of the underlying information does not ‘constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’” Regarding the privacy interests at issue, the court finds that “[t]he Department has not cited any Exemption 6 case holding that government employees have a significant, cognizable interest in keeping private the fact that they worked on a ‘controversial matter.’” “The Department comes closest with three out-of-circuit cases it cites, but all are readily distinguishable.” “Taken together, these cases stand for the proposition that government employees have some level of privacy interest in being protected from proven danger, public association with a fatal and heavily criticized incident, and targeting by bad actors for highly sensitive information.”  “None of those concerns are present here.”  “All told, the Department has not established that its employees have a significant interest in keeping private the fact that they participated in, and made particular contributions to, the development of a national emissions reduction pledge.” “Contrary to the Department’s suggestion, public servants generally have no cognizable interest in not being ‘investigated, described in the media, or contacted based on their’ work or otherwise receiving ‘unwanted attention.’”  “And while many Americans may have strong views on energy policy, the Department has not established a sufficient likelihood that disclosure would result in harassment, especially given the recently announced withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.”  “The only ‘harassment’ incident that the Department describes involved a handful of unpleasant replies (e.g., ‘criminals,’ ‘Climate Cult,’ and ‘nazi secret group’) to a 2023 Republican Party tweet about John Kerry’s declining to ‘identify the senior staff working in his office.’”  “The only doxing incident the Department proffers involved a Twitter account’s posting the ‘names, hometowns, occupations, and employers’ of President Trump’s campaign donors in 2017.”  “These distinguishable illustrations do not persuade us that disclosure here poses ‘threats to privacy interests more palpable than mere possibilities.’”  “Ultimately, the Department has not shown that the previous administrations development of a never-binding and now-abandoned emissions reduction target is a matter so controversial as to raise creditable concerns that members of the public will harass and/or dox the State Department employees implicated by [plaintiff’s] FOIA request.”  “Further, these Department employees have little, if any, privacy interest in shielding their government-issued email addresses from being disclosed and publicly associated with development of the 2021 Paris Agreement climate pledge.” “Exemption 6 expressly protects against ‘clearly unwarranted invasion[s] of personal privacy’ that would result from disclosure of certain information contained in agencies’ personnel, medical, and similar files.”  “A common-sense reading of the statutory text therefore reveals what the Supreme Court has deduced from legislative history: ‘Congress’ primary purpose in enacting Exemption 6 was to protect individuals from the injury and embarrassment that can result from the unnecessary disclosure of personal information.’”  “The Department’s position that Exemption 6 shields agency email addresses because its employees have significant privacy interests in them is hard to square with the fact that [plaintiff’s] request does not implicate Department employees’ ‘personal information’ or ‘personal matters.’” “Rather, [plaintiff’s] request seeks the email addresses of government-issued (and -monitored) accounts that federal employees use to conduct official business.”  “The Department does not address that tension.” “At least in this context, where there is scant substantiated threat of harassment, [the court is] not convinced that disclosing official email addresses ‘would constitute a[n] . . . invasion of personal privacy,’ let alone a ‘clearly unwarranted’ one.”   
  
  Regarding the public interest, the court relates that, “[a]fter the close of merits briefing, [it] asked the parties to file letter briefs addressing the impact on this case of President Trump’s Executive Order 14162, which initiated the country’s latest withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.”  “The Department’s position is that any public interest in disclosure of the information it is withholding ‘has been diminished’ because of the President’s order.” “[Plaintiff] counters that President Trump’s decision only ‘highlights the continuing strong public interest in the United States’ participation in the Paris Agreement.’”  “[Plaintiff] contends that there remains a ‘substantial interest’ in ‘understanding how policies under th[e] Agreement – like the climate pledge – were developed’ because it is ‘highly likely’ that ‘a future president might seek to rejoin the Paris Agreement and implement a new climate pledge.’”  “[The court] agree[s] with aspects of both parties’ positions.”  “President Trump’s action has, to some degree, lessened the salience of publishing the withheld information.”  “By the same token, the public retains an interest in understanding the Department’s past (and possibly future) process for developing the emissions reduction target.”  “On balance, [plaintiff] has the better of the argument.”  “Most fundamentally, the Department is wrong that disclosing the identities of employees who lack policymaking authority would provide no insight into government operations.”  “Knowing the identity of those actors would help the public learn – through open-source research, for example – the seniority, backgrounds, and areas of expertise of those Department employees who worked to commit the United States to the goal of achieving a substantial reduction in emissions by 2030.”  “Moreover, the Department has failed to rebut [plaintiff’s] contention that having the information it seeks would help [plaintiff] and others craft more precise follow-up FOIA requests.”
  
  “Balancing the interests, and mindful of FOIA’s ‘strong presumption in favor of disclosure,’ . . . [the court] conclude[s] that producing the information [plaintiff] seeks would not ‘constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[]’ . . . .”  “The Department has thus not met its burden of establishing that ‘the overall privacy interests of [its employees] clearly outweigh the presumption of public disclosure.’”  “So, the Department must disclose the names and email addresses that it is currently withholding.”
  
  Circuit Judge Haynes writes separately to dissent. Judge Haynes states that “[he] agree[s] with the district court that those names and email addresses may be redacted from the Department’s records under FOIA’s Exemption 6.”  Judge Haynes states that “the employees at issue did not have ‘policy-making authority’ but instead were ‘career civil service employees,’ ‘mid-level foreign service employees,’ and ‘non-decision-making policy experts.’”  “The names and email addresses of employees with policy-making authority have been provided, so our opinion is addressing only non-policy-making employees who could be subject to harm or harassment if their names and email addresses were provided.” “Also importantly here, while [plaintiff] says this is not a controversial situation, [Judge Haynes] disagree[s] with that because climate policy, including the greenhouse-gas-reduction target, is a high-profile and controversial matter.”