This document analyzes how judicial rulings regarding Exemption 1 of the Freedom of Information Act have affected journalists' ability to obtain government documents over the past decade. It finds that while more FOIA requests are being approved initially by agencies, success rates in lawsuits have declined from 7.7% in 2008 to 6.2% in 2014. Exemption 1, involving national security, continues to be frequently claimed and rarely overturned by courts. However, a few notable cases found in favor of transparency, like the New York Times obtaining drone targeting documents. Overall, journalists still face challenges in litigation but some progress has been made in initial request approvals.
Article assignment ndaa 2012 indefinate detention and loss of due process of lawWayne Williams
Students will examine the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012; specifically, Clauses 1021 and 1022 and the loss of citizens rights to due process of law.
Article assignment ndaa 2012 indefinate detention and loss of due process of lawWayne Williams
Students will examine the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012; specifically, Clauses 1021 and 1022 and the loss of citizens rights to due process of law.
Debating the USA PATRIOT ActDonna L. Point[1]Introduct.docxtheodorelove43763
Debating the USA PATRIOT Act
Donna L. Point[1]
Introduction
The nature of the problem for research purposes is to explore the pros and cons of the USA PATRIOT Act. The paper will endeavor to find documentation that answers such questions as: who benefits from the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act; who is harmed; what evidence exists that political rhetoric played a part in the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act; where are we now; have we gone too far?
Since its inception, the USA PATRIOT Act and indeed the “War on Terror” have been controversial. In less than six weeks, with no public debate and very little debate in the House or Senate, this legislation was set in motion. The document is over three hundred forty pages in length and affected over fifteen statutes. Most members of Congress voted for this bill without ever reading it. As our leaders rushed to respond to an enemy they did not understand well but nonetheless knew must be defeated, many concluded that the danger we faced was unlike any other in American history. They also ascertained that new approaches were needed to secure our nation, even if certain constitutional rights were curtailed in the process (Center for American Progress 2005). A Los Angeles Times poll taken on September 13 and 14, 2001, found that sixty-one percent of Americans believed that they would need to “give up some civil liberties” in order to confront terrorism (d’Estree and Busby 2001). President Bush announced on September 14, 2001, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (Stern 2004). This legislation, once enacted, included a laundry list of sought after law enforcement and investigatory tools perennially denied by Congress because they encroached on domestic issues of privacy (d’Estree and Busby 2001) (Weigel 2005). Many policy remedies that would have been unthinkable only days before the attacks suddenly seemed prudent. A focused examination of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and what they mean to law enforcement, to governmental agencies, and to the average citizen provide the insight necessary for critical examination of these issues.
The Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act
The provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act have been hotly debated since its inception, both in Congress and the arena of public opinion. The key provisions will be identified along with their meanings to both governmental agencies and the average citizen. Section 203 (b) and (d) information sharing: allows information from criminal probes to be shared with intelligence agencies and other parts of the government. These provisions are at the heart of the effort to break down the barriers that used to separate criminal and intelligence investigations. The United States Justice Department has frequently blamed these barriers for the failure to find and detain September 11th hijackers prior to the attacks. CIA agents had information significantly prior to the attacks that some of the hijackers were in the Un.
Running Head THE PATRIOT ACT OF THE USTHE PATRIOT ACT OF THE .docxtodd521
Running Head: THE PATRIOT ACT OF THE US
THE PATRIOT ACT OF THE US
THE PATRIOT ACT OF THE US
Abstract
This project will research the USA PATRIOT Act including its history and the impact the act has had on the American citizens` rights. The paper will also determine the different provisions found in the Act. After determining the Bill`s wording, this research will look at whether the rights and the constitution of the American citizens are violated by the provisions. This paper will also find out the different reauthorizations performed to the law including changes to the provisions. The advantages and disadvantages of the law are going to be explored and the conclusion will determine the law`s constitutionality and if it is easy to take the government`s powers gained and check if the power has shifted to an extent of not going back now.
Thesis Statement
The PATRIOT Act analysis will tell if the Act was written with genuine interest of the US citizens or it was written with the aim of stripping off our rights that are taken for granted by many individuals.
Body
The USA PATRIOT Act was new legislation that was formed by the Government agencies and the public to respond to the growing fears of an attack that they had during the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. The USA PATRIOT acronym stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”. The Bill was meant for implementing policies and plans with the aim of preventing a terrorist attack on our country in the near future. The Bill was also intended for the implementation of policies and plans for our citizens and interests throughout the globe (USA PATRIOT Act, 2017). There exist some controversial provisions in the power of conducting seizures and searches with the absence of “probable cause”, the gathering and interception of private communication involving text messages, email and voice call as well as the indefinite detention of terrorists who are suspected. It enabled easy access to an individual`s medical and financial records and fewer restrictions are involved in accessing court documents.
The PATRIOT Act was signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, and the act was made a necessity for keeping us safe from attacks that may occur in the future. However, there was an emergence of some concerns where some civil liberties were ignored by the Act. The law has been altered time and again since it was enacted.
According to McCarthy (2002), the Act is divided into nine categories namely surveillance, prevention of terrorism by anti-money laundering practices, improved intelligence, domestic security against terrorism, putting away judicial obstacles to investigation, border security, victims of terrorism compensation, establishment of criminal law of terrorism and terrorism classification as criminal offense. The surveillance provision has particularly brought problems regarding rights. Restrict.
Debating the USA PATRIOT ActDonna L. Point[1]Introduct.docxtheodorelove43763
Debating the USA PATRIOT Act
Donna L. Point[1]
Introduction
The nature of the problem for research purposes is to explore the pros and cons of the USA PATRIOT Act. The paper will endeavor to find documentation that answers such questions as: who benefits from the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act; who is harmed; what evidence exists that political rhetoric played a part in the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act; where are we now; have we gone too far?
Since its inception, the USA PATRIOT Act and indeed the “War on Terror” have been controversial. In less than six weeks, with no public debate and very little debate in the House or Senate, this legislation was set in motion. The document is over three hundred forty pages in length and affected over fifteen statutes. Most members of Congress voted for this bill without ever reading it. As our leaders rushed to respond to an enemy they did not understand well but nonetheless knew must be defeated, many concluded that the danger we faced was unlike any other in American history. They also ascertained that new approaches were needed to secure our nation, even if certain constitutional rights were curtailed in the process (Center for American Progress 2005). A Los Angeles Times poll taken on September 13 and 14, 2001, found that sixty-one percent of Americans believed that they would need to “give up some civil liberties” in order to confront terrorism (d’Estree and Busby 2001). President Bush announced on September 14, 2001, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (Stern 2004). This legislation, once enacted, included a laundry list of sought after law enforcement and investigatory tools perennially denied by Congress because they encroached on domestic issues of privacy (d’Estree and Busby 2001) (Weigel 2005). Many policy remedies that would have been unthinkable only days before the attacks suddenly seemed prudent. A focused examination of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and what they mean to law enforcement, to governmental agencies, and to the average citizen provide the insight necessary for critical examination of these issues.
The Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act
The provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act have been hotly debated since its inception, both in Congress and the arena of public opinion. The key provisions will be identified along with their meanings to both governmental agencies and the average citizen. Section 203 (b) and (d) information sharing: allows information from criminal probes to be shared with intelligence agencies and other parts of the government. These provisions are at the heart of the effort to break down the barriers that used to separate criminal and intelligence investigations. The United States Justice Department has frequently blamed these barriers for the failure to find and detain September 11th hijackers prior to the attacks. CIA agents had information significantly prior to the attacks that some of the hijackers were in the Un.
Running Head THE PATRIOT ACT OF THE USTHE PATRIOT ACT OF THE .docxtodd521
Running Head: THE PATRIOT ACT OF THE US
THE PATRIOT ACT OF THE US
THE PATRIOT ACT OF THE US
Abstract
This project will research the USA PATRIOT Act including its history and the impact the act has had on the American citizens` rights. The paper will also determine the different provisions found in the Act. After determining the Bill`s wording, this research will look at whether the rights and the constitution of the American citizens are violated by the provisions. This paper will also find out the different reauthorizations performed to the law including changes to the provisions. The advantages and disadvantages of the law are going to be explored and the conclusion will determine the law`s constitutionality and if it is easy to take the government`s powers gained and check if the power has shifted to an extent of not going back now.
Thesis Statement
The PATRIOT Act analysis will tell if the Act was written with genuine interest of the US citizens or it was written with the aim of stripping off our rights that are taken for granted by many individuals.
Body
The USA PATRIOT Act was new legislation that was formed by the Government agencies and the public to respond to the growing fears of an attack that they had during the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. The USA PATRIOT acronym stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”. The Bill was meant for implementing policies and plans with the aim of preventing a terrorist attack on our country in the near future. The Bill was also intended for the implementation of policies and plans for our citizens and interests throughout the globe (USA PATRIOT Act, 2017). There exist some controversial provisions in the power of conducting seizures and searches with the absence of “probable cause”, the gathering and interception of private communication involving text messages, email and voice call as well as the indefinite detention of terrorists who are suspected. It enabled easy access to an individual`s medical and financial records and fewer restrictions are involved in accessing court documents.
The PATRIOT Act was signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, and the act was made a necessity for keeping us safe from attacks that may occur in the future. However, there was an emergence of some concerns where some civil liberties were ignored by the Act. The law has been altered time and again since it was enacted.
According to McCarthy (2002), the Act is divided into nine categories namely surveillance, prevention of terrorism by anti-money laundering practices, improved intelligence, domestic security against terrorism, putting away judicial obstacles to investigation, border security, victims of terrorism compensation, establishment of criminal law of terrorism and terrorism classification as criminal offense. The surveillance provision has particularly brought problems regarding rights. Restrict.
Chapter 3 Due Process, Equal Protection, and Civil Rights Those .docxchristinemaritza
Chapter 3 Due Process, Equal Protection, and Civil Rights
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter you should better understand:
· • The standards applied for determining whether a procedure satisfies the constitutional due process requirements
· • The manner in which the restrictions on federal government action in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the due process guaranty that applies to state actions
· • The U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to determining whether classifications violate the constitutional equal protection requirements
· • The classifications to which “strict scrutiny” is applied in the equal protection analysis
· • The basic remedies available for civil rights violations
At the heart of the rule of law lie the ideals that everyone should be treated fairly and equally before the law. Toward this end the U.S. Constitution protects individual rights by constraining government. But fairness and equality cannot be reduced to prohibitions. To reach more broadly the Constitution also includes fundamental guaranties. Many important court decisions and legislative acts addressing individual rights have been based on the two most fundamental general guaranties: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.
A Due Process Clause was part of the Fifth Amendment in the original Bill of Rights and it was aimed at the federal government. It provides that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process.” The original Bill of Rights did not mention equal protection of the laws in a general sense. The Fourteenth Amendment, added after the Civil War and aimed at former slave states, included the same due process provisions as the Fifth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment also included the Equal Protection Clause. It provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Although nothing in the text said that equal protection applied to the federal government as well as to the states, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually held that it did. In 1954 in Bolling v. Sharpe the Court said that “the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The ‘equal protection of the laws’ is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than ‘due process of law,’ and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.”1 Consequently due process and equal protection apply to both federal and state laws.
The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses address government action. They require that laws and legal procedures be fair. As discussed in the final section of this chapter, other constitutional provisions or laws may directly address unfair or discriminato ...
Our unstable world has left many American’s to consider the costs and benefits of national security and civil rights. This paper briefly reviews the States Secret Privilege, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and The Patriot Act. In response to the attacks to our financial capital in New York and our nation’s defense department, The Patriot Act was enacted. These expansive powers granted to protect our security are examined in terms of how the impact upon potential limitations to our Constitutional Rights.
Stand Your GroundLatoshan LangI. IntroductionWhen.docxdessiechisomjj4
Stand Your Ground:
Latoshan Lang
I. Introduction
When there is a perceived problem or opportunity, policies tend to be developed. Several states have a law call “Stand your ground law” that remove the duty for one to retreat before using force in self-defenses cases. In 2005, Florida passed the stand your ground law, which allows people to not retreat, if they think their life, is in danger, and they have the right to be where they are. Many others states also follow suit, allowing people to use deadly forces even outside their homes if it is necessary. Each state has a different variation of the self-defense law but in essence require the person to have the right to be there. State defense law are essentially characterized in three categories (Dahrendorf, 1981).
· “Stand Your Ground”: if a person has the right to be at the place. They are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves and are immune from prosecution
· Castle Doctrine: real property such as your office, yard, home, or vehicles. You do not have to retreat.
· Duty to Retreat: use of deadly force must be the last resort, if you are safe or can flee from the situation safe, use of deadly force would not prevent you from prosecution. (Kurtz, 2013).
Stand your ground laws essentially replace the duty to retreat laws. State your ground came into existence to remove any confusion on when a person can use self-defense. It also eliminates prosecutions for people who legitimately used self-defense (McClellan, & Tekin, 2012). Stand your ground laws offers immunity in a claim of self-defense, an individual could claim self-defense under the states “stand your ground” law and escape trial altogether (Yu, 2014).The relevant section of the Florida statutes (FS 776.013(3) reads: “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat, and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (Citation )
II. Problem identification and Agenda setting
Stand your ground law stems from Castle Doctrine. The Castle Doctrine laws come from the English common law that states that if an intruder breaks into your home you are allowed to use force to defend yourself and your property without retreating. Lawmakers and gun-right activist saw a greater need to expand the castle doctrine law. Over the years, many states have expanded the castle doctrine law. The new laws extend beyond the home in places such as vehicle, vehicle or anywhere else a person have the right to be.
Several factors contribute to the states expanding the castle doctrine. Several of those factors are:
· A weakened sense of public safety after the terrorist attacks in 2001;
· A lack of confidence in the criminal justice system’.
FPTP - Recent developments within the US Supreme Courttutor2u
The Roberts Court usually hears around 70 to 80 cases a year. Most are of a dry and legalistic character, with little to capture the interest of students or teachers. However, there are times when the Court passes judgement on a case that could genuinely be considered a landmark.
Survivimg the great Bank Robbery
Burgeoning NPAs of banks can be tackled by creating a "bad" bank and allowing distressed compnaies to be restructed by specialised experts from the private sector
There is rarely a time that goes by that there is not some discuss.docxchristalgrieg
There is rarely a time that goes by that there is not some discussion in the news of how to establish the critical balance between privacy and national security. In fact, for some, it is not a matter of balance. They would advocate that we err on ensuring that the nation is secure no matter the infringement upon privacy rights; or conversely that the right to privacy trump all other endeavors, including national security. However, most contend that there is indeed a balance between the two, but it remains a significant challenge to determine exactly what that looks like.
This challenge is particularly prevalent in the intelligence field. As you have learned, much of what occurs in the intelligence field in conducted in secrecy. While the inputs to the intelligence process may very well be open source material that everyone can access, once analyzed and combined the intelligence products contain very sensitive and guarded information of national significance. However, the U.S. is a democracy that embraces the ideals of government transparency and the protection of constitution rights. As such, congressional oversight of intelligence activities is employed to ensure these ideals are upheld.
Congressional Oversight
It is not difficult to imagine that the intelligence community and congress can often find themselves at odds with one another. This is in part due to the fact that congress has three distinct mechanisms by which to mange the IC:
1. Controlling Resources
2. Passage of new legislation
3. Release of information to the public
Controlling Resources: Like all agencies, Congress is responsible for the review and authorization of funding for intelligence agencies. The power for Congress to do this function comes from the Intelligence Authorization Act. By controlling the funding, Congress can effectively threaten to withhold funding from the IC until the IC is able to thoroughly justify their needs and proposed expenditures (Riley & Schneider, 2010).
Passage of New Legislation: Another function that Congress exerts over all agencies, including the IC, is legal in nature. Congress is charged with ensuring that new legislation is passed that “authorizes, constrains, or otherwise affects the operations of the intelligence agencies”. Therefore, Congress has the ultimate ability to control the actions that the IC is legally allowed to execute. The IC does not grant their rights or powers (Riley & Schneider, 2010).
Release of Information to the Public: Senate Resolution 400 created the Senate’s intelligence oversights committee and also provides for the ability for Congress to declassify information for public release. This action has never been executed, although the ability for Congress to do so remains a power (Riley & Schneider, 2010).
Events Leading to Congressional Control
Interestingly, Congress did not always have the powers over the IC that they do today. In fact, there were several events that lead to this current relationship. Histo ...
There is rarely a time that goes by that there is not some discuss.docx
Law Research Paper
1. The Freedom of Information Act and Journalistsʼ Ability to Obtain
Government Documents in the Past Decade
by Westley Casey
Dr. J. Hedrick
COM 380
Jacksonville State University
04/06/2015
2. I. Introduction
" For journalists, news agencies, and media in general, getting documents from
the government is a vital factor in keeping government entities accountable and
forthright. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), enacted in 1966, gave journalists and
every American the right to file a request for documents. Unless a separate state law is
created, this process is limited only to the federal government (but not the courts or
congress) (Tedford & Herbeck, 2013). Requests for information are not always granted.
In fact many of the documents requested are claimed by the government to not exist at
all. There are nine exemptions the government can invoke in order to withhold
information: 1) National Security Information, 2) Internal Personnel Rules and Practices,
3) Information exempt under other laws, 4) Confidential Business Information, 5) Inter or
intra agency communication that is subject to deliberative process, litigation, and other
privileges, 6) Personal Privacy, 7) Law Enforcement Records that implicate one of 6
enumerated concerns, 8) Financial Institutions, 9) Geological Information.
" This study will focus on Exemption 1 and how it has affected journalists. The
research question is as follows:
“How have judicial rulings (specifically regarding Exemption 1) during the past decade
affected journalists' ability to obtain government documents through the Freedom of
Information Act?”
"
3. II. History of Law and Legal Precedent
" To fully understand the law and the implications of court rulings, one must
understand the roles and dynamics of state and federal laws in regards to the
Constitution, the roles and powers of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President,
and the history and importance of legal precedent.
" The idea of federal supremacy in law is as old as our country. In the United
States Constitution, Article 6, there is section commonly known as the Supremacy
Clause. This clause states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of
any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Basically, this says that any law passed in
the Congress shall apply to all states. However, for some time, many states were
reluctant to give up this part of their sovereignty.
" In 1868, as part of Reconstruction legislation, the Congress passed the 14th
Amendment which stated that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This first section
increased the rights of citizens and, over time, was interpreted to apply the Bill of Rights
to all states and to protect citizens from infringement of those rights by the states.
" The Supreme Court has slowly granted more rights to citizens based on this
amendment. This is what makes the Supreme Court so powerful and important; they get
4. to interpret laws and create a precedent. This means that the rulings they hand down
become federal law and create a standard of practice until that law is interpreted
another way by the Court at a later time. Essentially, their rulings become constitutional
law. This, of course, differs from how the executive and legislature operate and their
roles. The legislature create laws which are then approved or vetoed by the president,
who is also tasked with enforcing the law through overseeing various agencies.
" In regard to the federal court system deciding on FOIA disputes, they are the
ones who interpret what the law says and whether or not an individual or entity is
entitled to the document and whether or not (concerning Exemption 1) releasing such
information will threaten national security.
5. III. Recent Development of FOIA
Freedom of Information Act requests have often been a headache for journalists since
its inception. Lawsuits can regularly ensue if the journalist or news organization believes
that the withholding agency is doing so on unlawful grounds. Litigation of FOIA requests
can be tricky, however. The substance of the information sought is often unknown to
anyone but the agency, which can make it difficult for the suing party to know how to
argue for the release of the documents.
" For agencies such as the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and
the Department of State, Exemption 1 (withholding due to matters of national security) is
commonly is commonly invoked. When this is done, judges and justices are seldom
inclined to release the sought information. According to a News Media and the Law
article, “Many FOIA experts agree that litigation challenging an agencyʼs claim that
releasing records will harm national security or law enforcement is often more difficult
than litigating other types of harms” (You-Jin, 2012).
" One such case where journalists fought, and eventually lost, was that of Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Defense and CIA. According to the D.C. Circuit court case
file, “Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking disclosure by the
Central Intelligence Agency of 52 post-mortem images of Osama bin Laden. The
agency refused on the ground that the images were classified Top Secret” (United
States Court of Appeals For the District of Columbia Circuit, 2013). Believing the photos
were of social and historical importance, Judicial Watch sought the photos but were
denied by the Washington D.C. Circuit court by reason of Exemption 1. There many,
many more stories such as this one where watchdogs and journalists failin their search
6. for government transparency. Another example, however, sheds light on those rare
instances where the little guy can prevail.
" In 2014, the New York Times brought legal action against the Department of
Justice. The news organization wanted access to the legal analysis of the Obama
administrationʼs drone targeted-killing program (specifically the incidents involving the
killing of American citizens in the Middle East in the war on terror.) The government
initially denied the release, claiming it was classified or privileged document. The Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, however, ruled otherwise. Since the Justice
Department made open legal claims about the legality of the drone targeting program,
they were legally required to produce the documents that demonstrated this (United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2013). Although, some items were
redacted, this is very common and is next to impossible to get war-related information
that is not. This was a clear victory for the freedom of the press and the publicʼs right to
know. Unfortunately, this is the exception, not the rule. Further FOIA litigation analysis
will support this.
" In 2008 (the earliest available FOIA litigation information readily available via
internet) there were approximately 260 lawsuits brought against a federal agency for
failing to produce what the plaintiffs claimed was applicably available documents under
FOIA. Of those 260, only 20 were found in favor of the plaintiff (excluding motions to
dismiss and awards of legal costs). That is, only 7.7% of plaintiffs actually won the case
and received the information they sought (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015; FOIA.gov,
2015).
"
7. " Some, like You-Jin Han, saw an upward swing of FOIA cases being decided for
the plaintiff (the entity seeking information) in 2012. After the 9/11 attacks, the George
W. Bush administration tightened its reigns on approving FOIA requests, disapproving
them if there was any “sound legal basis” (Tedford & Herbeck 2013). In 2012, it looked
as if things might be turning around in the judicial arena. A series of cases which many
might have called hard-to-win were found for the plaintiff. Steven Aftergood, director of
the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, spoke of one
such case: “ʻThe judge did what judges almost never do, which is to say, “hey, that
classification position doesnʼt make any sense,”ʼ says Aftergood. ʻThe kind of
substantive review that the court performed in [that case] is literally extraordinary — we
just donʼt see itʼ” (You-Jin, 2012).
" Now, one can examine the 2014 data to contrast and compare. Last year, there
were 422 lawsuits filed (a record number) against the government for withholding
documents. Of those 422, 26 were awarded to the plaintiff (not including motions to
dismiss and awards of legal costs). That is, only 6.2% of those seeking information
through FOIA received it. This is a decrease from the amount in 2008. This shows that
the 2012 trend was just that: a trend. This may be a discouraging blow to those who
wish to seek important information. Some even disagree the courtsʼ decisions to rule on
the vast majority of these cases using summary judgement, using the wrong approach
and rationale for doing such (Silver, 2006). Whether the problem is the court procedure,
the exemptions themselves, or some other factor, all hope is not lost for those seeking
FOIA documents.
8. " When the numbers on how many requests are granted before litigation, there has
been a rise. In 2008, FOIA denials numbered 34,032. Granted requests (partial or in full)
were 27,240. However, in 2014, there 25,659 denials and 34,367 approvals (FOIA.gov,
2015). This shows that a greater percentage of requests are now granted than were
denied in 2008. Perhaps this is due to President Obamaʼs instruction to all federal
departments, after his election, for FOIA requests to “be administered with a clear
presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails” (Tedford & Herbeck, 2013). This
indicates a willingness among present agencies to approve more from the outset.
9. IV. Conclusion
" Journalists and government watchdogs still face an uphill battle with regards to
the Freedom of Information Act. The judiciary has not seemed to any less favorable the
the various federal agencies from the start of the decade to now. There are, though
examples of when the press can prevail and transparency can be brought to tangible
fruition. With the increase in primary request approvals, it seems that obtaining such
information is actually easier, although, further analysis will be needed to determine the
particulars of what information gets released what does not. As far as Exemption 1 is
concerned, it is not apparent at this time whether or not there is a substantial or
minuscule amount of those request granted at this time. Exeption 1 continues to be a
significant part of denial explanations.
10. References
Munno, G. (2014). FOIA Suits Jump in 2014. Retrieved from http://foiaproject.org/
" 2014/12/22/foia-suits-jump-in-2014/
Silver, R. (2006). Standard of Review in FOIA Appeals and the Misuse of Summary
" Judgment. The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 731-757.
" Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4495567.
Tedford, T. L., & Herbeck, D. A. (2013). Freedom of speech in the United States
! pp. 388-390. Strata Publishing Inc.: State College, PN.
The U.S. Department of Justice, (2015). Decisions rendered in 2008. Retrieved from
" http://www.justice.gov/oip/2008-calendar-year-report-department- justice-
" freedom-information-act-litigation-activities-2
United States Court of Appeals For the District of Columbia Circuit (2013). USCA Case
! #12-5137, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Defense and
! Central Intelligence Agency (PDF file). Retrieved from http://legaltimes.
" typepad.com /files/obl-photos.pdf
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2013). Docket Nos. 13-422(L),
! 13-445(Con), The New York Times Company v. United States (PDF file).
" Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/
" 13-422/13-422-2014-04-21.html
You-Jin, H. (2012). Rare victories in recent FOIA cases raise questions about judicial
" deference. The News Media and the Law, Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 35. Retrieved from
" http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-
" and-law-summer-2012/rare-victories-recent-foia-
11. FIOA.gov (2015). Data: Create a basic report. Retrieved from http://www.foia.gov/
" data.html
