District of Columbia v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 18-cv-2410 (TSC) ) UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND ) CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION The District of Columbia has sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division (ICE), seeking to compel disclosure of information responsive to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Before the court are ICE’s motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and the District’s cross-motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT ICE’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16), and DENY the District’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19). I. BACKGROUND In July 2018, ICE conducted an enforcement operation throughout the Washington, D.C. area. (ECF No. 16-3, Def. SOF, ¶ 1.) Over the course of twelve days, ICE arrested 132 people, including 12 people in D.C. (Id. ¶ 2.) The District submitted a FOIA request to ICE seeking agency records related to the 12 arrests and certain ICE policies, including those on enforcement actions and racial or ethnic profiling. (Id. ¶¶ 3–5.) ICE located 390 pages of responsive records and produced 46 pages, withholding portions under various exemptions. (Id. ¶ 9–10.) Among the produced pages was a spreadsheet containing, for each arrestee: • name, • place and date of arrest by ICE, • birthdate, • whether he was on ICE’s target list, • gender, • whether he was a criminal, • nationality, • his “most egregious criminal conviction,” • subject ID, • any pending criminal charges, and • immigration status, • status as fugitive, re-entry, or at large. (ECF No. 16-2, Ex. 4.) ICE redacted the arrestees’ names, dates of birth, and subject IDs, asserting that the information fell within FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C). (Id.) It also produced an email—with names again redacted—listing each arrestees’ removal status and, for those in custody, their location. (Def. SOF ¶ 12.) II. LEGAL STANDARD “FOIA provides a ‘statutory right of public access to documents and records’ held by federal government agencies.” Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 602 F. Supp. 2d 121, 123 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408, 413 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). The Act requires that federal agencies comply with requests to make their records available to the public, unless such “information is exempted under [one of nine] clearly delineated statutory [exemptions].” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)–(b). “FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment.” Georgacarakos v. FBI, 908 F. Supp. 2d 176, 180 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Defs. of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2009)). Summary judgment in FOIA cases may 2 be based solely on information provided in an agency’s supporting affidavits or declarations if they are “relatively detailed and nonconclusory.” SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals