close X
07/31/2018

Millennium Challenge Corporation Adopts CoA Institute’s Recommendations for FOIA Regulations

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (“MCC”) finalized a rule at the end of last week implementing new Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) regulations and incorporated important revisions proposed by Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) in a comment submitted to the agency in March 2018.  The MCC is a small agency tasked with delivering foreign aid to combat global poverty.

CoA Institute made several recommendations in response to the MCC’s proposed rulemaking.  Most importantly, we urged the agency to remove outdated “organized and operated” language from its proposed definition of a “representative of the news media.”  Such language has been used in the past to deny news media requester status—and favorable fee treatment—to government watchdog organizations, including CoA Institute.  For example, CoA Institute sued the Federal Trade Commission, and took its case all the way to the D.C. Circuit, just to get the agency to acknowledged that its FOIA fee regulations were outdated and that it had improperly denied CoA Institute a fee reduction.

In deciding that case, the D.C. Circuit issued a landmark decision clarifying proper fee category definitions and the application of fees in FOIA cases.  CoA Institute cited this case to the MCC and the agency took heed of the current case law, removing the outdated “organized and operated” standard from its final rule.

CoA Institute also asked the MCC to remove language directing FOIA officials to read agency regulations “in conjunction with” fee guidelines published by the White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) in 1987.  Portions of the OMB guidance, which are actually the source of the “organized and operated” standard, are simply no longer authoritative—they conflict with the statutory text, as amended by Congress, and judicial authorities, including Cause of Action v. Federal Trade Commission.

Continued reliance on the OMB guidelines threatens to cause confusion.  In 2016, the FOIA Advisory Committee and the Archivist of the United States both called on OMB to update its fee guidelines.  CoA Institute also filed a petition for rulemaking on the issue, and is currently litigating the matter in federal court.  Although the MCC has decided not to alter its reference to the OMB guidelines (and did not provide an explanation for rejecting that portion of CoA Institute’s comment), the fact remains that no agency can rely on OMB’s superseded directives.

Since the passage of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, CoA Institute has commented on twenty-six separate rulemakings.  Of the twelve that have been finalized, CoA Institute has succeeded in convincing seven agencies to abandon the outdated “organized and operated” standard in favor of a proper definition of “representative of the news media,” including the following:

Some agencies, including the National Credit Union Administration and the Federal Reserve, choose to defer on CoA Institute’s recommendations and have promised to propose further rulemakings in the near future to address outstanding fee issues.

CoA Institute’s successful comment to MCC is another small step in our efforts to provide effective and transparent oversight of the administrative state and, more specifically, to ensure agency compliance with the FOIA.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Blog Learn More
07/23/2018

Federal Judge Confirms Agencies’ FRA Record Recovery Efforts Must Include Reaching Out to Third-Party Email Providers

Last Friday, Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the federal government’s second motion to dismiss a lawsuit to compel Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Archivist David Ferriero to fulfill their statutory obligations under the Federal Records Act (“FRA”) to recover former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s work-related email records from a personal account hosted by AOL, Inc.  Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) filed the lawsuit in October 2016 after then-Secretary John Kerry and Archivist Ferriero failed to act on CoA Institute’s FRA notice and Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request.

Although Judge McFadden’s dismissal is a technical defeat, albeit on procedural grounds, CoA Institute’s work in this case, and in another FRA case involving Hillary Clinton, is still a success.  Taken together, these cases have the raised the bar for what federal agencies must do when records go missing.  In future cases, agencies will be required, at the least, to reach out directly to third-party email providers in an attempt to recover work-related email records and may not rely on self-serving statements from agency officials that such records no longer exist.

In the recent motion, the government again sought dismissal on mootness grounds, arguing that Secretary Powell no longer had access to the account he used during his tenure at the State Department and, moreover, it would be “technologically impossible” for AOL to recover any records from its servers.  Correspondence from Secretary Powell and various AOL employees was used to support the government’s claims.  But the agency reached out to Secretary Powell and AOL only after Judge McFadden rejected a similar motion to dismiss in January 2018, holding that there was still a “substantial likelihood,” based on the record, that Secretary Powell’s work-related email could be recovered if the State Department were to leverage the full law enforcement authority of the federal government.  Judge McFadden looked to the Department of Justice’s successful recovery of former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s email from computer hard drives and mobile devices as a guide.

In opposition to the government’s second motion, and in support of its own motion for summary judgment, CoA Institute argued that the government had failed to provide enough evidence to establish fatal loss of the email records at issue, particularly since Secretary Pompeo and Archivist Ferriero continued to refuse to involve the Attorney General in compulsory or forensic recovery efforts.

This time around, however, the judge was convinced that the government had done enough and additional efforts would be “pointless.”  Nevertheless, in future cases, agencies will need to undertake substantial efforts to prove fatal loss, even if that means contacting third-party commercial communications providers to determine the recoverability of records on their servers or networks.

The alienation of federal records will likely continue with the fast-paced development of technology and alternative means of communication within the federal bureaucracy.  CoA Institute is committed to ensuring that the law follows these developments and holds government employees accountable.

Ryan Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More
07/19/2018

EPA responds to House OGR Democrats, arguing FOIA “sensitive review” originated with the Obama Administration

Earlier this week, Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (“OGR”) released details about how officials from the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) admitted to subjecting politically sensitive Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests to layers of extra scrutiny, including review by political appointees.  OGR Ranking Member Elijah Cummings even asked Chairman Trey Gowdy to issue a subpoena compelling the EPA to hand over various records documenting its FOIA processes.

Since Cause of Action Institute’s (“CoA Institute’s) coverage of this issue on Monday, there have been two important developments.  First, on Tuesday, Chairman Gowdy denied OGR Democrats their request for a subpoena.  Second, and more importantly, reports have revealed that Kevin Minoli, the EPA Principal Deputy General Counsel and Designated Agency Ethics Official, sent a letter to OGR Democrats on Sunday, arguing that the agency’s sensitive review policies actually originated with the Obama Administration.

According to Minoli, the EPA created a “FOIA Expert Assistance Team,” or “FEAT,” in 2013 to provide “strategic direction and project management assistance” on “complex FOIA requests.”  Minoli explained that a FOIA request could be classified as “complex,” for FEAT purposes, if someone in the agency’s leadership requested it to be so.  FEAT coordinated “White House equities” review and also alerted the Office of Public Affairs, as well as “senior leaders” within the EPA, of particularly noteworthy requests through its so-called “awareness review” process.

The EPA’s latest clarification vindicates CoA Institute’s repeated warnings (here and here) not to let political judgments about the Trump EPA’s policy agenda interfere with understanding and criticism of long-standing problems of FOIA administration, including the politicization that inevitably results from “sensitive review” processes.  To be sure, it appears the Trump Administration has worsened the problem, particularly at the EPA.  But the groundwork for this sort of FOIA politicization was laid by President Obama.  Indeed, Minoli claims OGR’s investigative work during the Obama-era was part of the then-Administration’s impetus for creating FEAT.

Regardless of which party or president is responsible for introducing FOIA sensitive review at the EPA or any other agency, the practice still raises serious concerns.  Although alerting or involving political appointees in FOIA administration does not violate the law per se—and may, in rare cases be appropriate—there is never any assurance that the practice will not lead to severe delays of months and even years.  At its worst, sensitive FOIA review leads to intentionally inadequate searches, politicized document review, improper record redaction, and incomplete disclosure.  When politically sensitive or potentially embarrassing records are at issue, politicians and bureaucrats will always have an incentive to err on the side of secrecy and non-disclosure.

Considering these developments, CoA Institute has submitted a FOIA request to the EPA seeking further information about FEAT and the agency’s sensitive review policy.  We will continue to report on the matter as information becomes available.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More
07/16/2018

EPA Chief of Staff describes agency’s sensitive review process for “politically charged” FOIA requests

Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (“OGR”) revealed new details last week about the processing of politically sensitive Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests at the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).  According to The Hill, Ryan Jackson, Chief of Staff to former Administrator Scott Pruitt and current Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, explained to “congressional investigators” how “‘politically charged’ or ‘complex’ requests . . . get an extra layer of review before being fulfilled, likely delaying” production of requested records.  Jackson specifically discussed how the EPA determined that one Sierra Club FOIA request—described as a “fishing expedition”—was improperly broad.  Other requests were delayed so that the disclosure of responsive records could “coincide with similar releases.”  This politicization also benefitted requesters sympathetic to the Administration; one request from the National Pork Producers Council was “expedited” due to Jackson’s intervention when he set up a meeting with EPA policy officials.

Reports about FOIA politicization at the EPA are not new.  At the beginning of May 2018, Politico reported that “top aides” had leaked internal emails showing the role of officials within the Office of the Administrator in reviewing “documents collected for most or all FOIA requests regarding [Pruitt’s] activities[.]”  The apparent aim of this “sensitive review” was to limit the release of embarrassing or politically damaging records.  House Democrats at OGR stepped into the game in early June 2018, demanding various records concerning the EPA’s policies for implementing the FOIA.  To date, the agency has pointed only to publicly available records, thus prompting Ranking Member Elijah Cummings to ask Chairman Trey Gowdy to exercise his subpoena authority and compel a substantive response.  (Incidentally, the EPA has previously ignored congressional records requests about FOIA politicization, as we explained in May 2014.)

The entire transparency community should be concerned over the heightening of sensitive review at the EPA.  But it also is important to keep politics from clouding our understanding and criticism of the practice.  As I wrote in May 2018:

It is true that the Trump Administration has enhanced sensitive review processes at the EPA.  Other agencies have witnessed a similar expansion of sensitive review, as Cause of Action Institute’s investigation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration demonstrates.  But it would be a mistake—as I argued last December—to think that the Obama White House was any better at avoiding FOIA politicization.  The EPA has a long and terrible track record for anti-transparency behavior.  Consider the agency’s blatant weaponization of fee waivers.  According to data compiled by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and reported by Reason and The Washington Examiner, the Obama EPA regularly denied public interest fee waivers to organizations critical of the agency’s regulatory activities and the White House’s policy agenda.  By contrast, left-leaning groups nearly always (92% of the time) received fee waivers.

Sensitive review, along with other forms of FOIA politicization, such as “White House equities” review, is a cherished tradition for both the Left and the Right.  Regardless of which party controls the Executive Branch, the natural tendency will always be to keep embarrassing or politically sensitive records out of the hands of the public and—most especially—the news media.  Cause of Action Institute itself was regularly subject to “sensitive review” during President Obama’s tenure, and we continue to be singled out for “special” treatment under President Trump, as records from the Federal Aviation Administration have shown.  Regardless, we remain committed to exposing the practice of sensitive review and advocating for reform to combat all FOIA politicization.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

 

Media, Blog Learn More
07/10/2018

Department of the Army Refuses to Search Its Servers for Email Records

In May 2016, Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) sued the Department of the Army after it refused to produce records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) concerning the use of teleconference technology at the White House.  CoA Institute’s FOIA request, which was filed in June 2015, followed the release of a record in an unrelated FOIA matter by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).  That email revealed how a special email account, “system.manager@conus.army.mil,” had been set-up and was operated by the military for the purposes of facilitating teleconferences.
Although the OMB record may strike some as containing seemingly benign information, it nonetheless piqued our interest.  We realized that little is known about how the Executive Office of the President (“EOP”) arranges its audio and video conferences.  Moreover, there is scant public information available about the important role played by the President’s “IT team,” the White House Communications Agency (“WHCA”), in the functioning of the White House.  We were also troubled because the OMB record showed how WHCA was responsible for facilitating a conference call for inter-agency consultation on “White House equities.”  As we have repeatedly described, “White House equities” review is a form of FOIA politicization that allows the President to interfere with and delay the production of politically sensitive records.

WHCA released approximately 200 pages of email correspondence in response to our request.  The Army, however, failed to identify any responsive records.  In the lead up to summary judgment proceedings, we continually asked the Army about its efforts to search for records in the “@conus.army.mil” account.  We had even given the Army a copy of the OMB email when we filed an administrative appeal in September 2015.  But the Army kept mum and only provided details about its “search” last month, arguing that it had located the so-called CONUS account and determined that its contents were stored on Army computer servers.  But the Army claimed that the account would contain zero “responsive records.”  Why?  Because only “EOP personnel” interfaced with the account, even though it was owned and maintained by the military and stored on Army hardware.

We filed our own cross-motion for summary judgment yesterday.  The first part of our argument focuses on the Army’s unjustifiably narrow and unfair reading of our FOIA request, which sought all records of correspondence with EOP about conference calls “hosted and/or arranged by the military.”  Not only did we give the OMB record to the government to demonstrate exactly the sort of records we wanted—which should be enough to defeat the Army’s interpretation of the scope of our FOIA request—but any natural reading of the operative words “hosted” and “arranged” would include the situation of an agency maintaining a software system and email account for the sole purpose of setting-up audio and video conferences.  Whether Army personnel were involved in the day-to-day business of confirming the details for a new conference, or merely set up some sort of automated process, is without moment.

The second part of our cross-motion concerns the redaction of non-contractor employees of the Department of Defense (“DOD”) in the WHCA correspondence.  DOD takes the position that, as a categorical matter, nearly all the names and email addresses of its employees may be kept secret.  But there are several problems with this position.  First, FOIA caselaw generally disfavors categorical claims and, in the context of personal privacy interests, the public interest can outweigh an individual’s right to keep their name and work information secret—particularly when the individual is a government employee.  Second, official DOD policy posted on the agency’s FOIA website explicitly directs the sort of information we want to be made public unless disclosure would raise “substantial security or privacy concerns.”  Finally, the FOIA’s newly-added “foreseeable harm” standard mandates that an agency demonstrate how specific pieces of information may, if disclosed, be reasonably foreseen to harm an interest protected by a statutory exemption.  That sets a high bar, particularly in the context of DOD’s categorical and generally applicable policy.  In this case, it seems unlikely that the EOP’s IT staff could be described as working in a “sensitive” position, akin to activity duty military personnel on the front line or law enforcement officials involved with criminal investigative activities.  We look forward to the Army’s reply brief.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More
06/28/2018

SEC Adopts CoA Institute’s Recommendations in Updated FOIA Regulations

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) finalized new Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) regulations today, adopting two revisions from a comment that Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) proposed in January 2018.  The FOIA allows for the disclosure of records of federal agencies, including documents, emails, and reports, and is an essential tool for promoting government transparency.

CoA Institute made three recommendations in response to the SEC’s proposed rulemaking.  First, we urged the agency to remove outdated “organized and operated” language from its definition of “representative of the news media.”  Such language has been used in the past to deny FOIA fee waivers to organizations like CoA Institute that investigate agency waste, fraudulent activity, cronyism, and wrongdoing.  In 2015, we argued Cause of Action v. Federal Trade Commission before the D.C. Circuit, which resulted in a landmark ruling that invalidated the “organized and operated” requirement.

In Cause of Action, the D.C. Circuit clarified proper fee category definitions and the application of fees for FOIA requests.  CoA Institute cited this case in its comment to the SEC and the agency concurred with our proposal to remove the outdated “organized and operated” language from its definition of a news media requester.  The FTC also acknowledged the D.C. Circuit’s landmark decision in its final rule.

Second, CoA Institute recommended eliminating “case-by-case” fee category determinations.  Under the original rule proposed by the SEC, FOIA offices would “determine whether to grant a requester news media status on a case-by-case basis based upon the requester’s intended use of the requested material.”  CoA Institute again cited Cause of Action to argue that the focus of the fee waiver inquiry should be on “requesters, rather than [their] requests.”  The SEC agreed and removed the restrictive language.

Finally, CoA Institute recommended that the SEC recognize that a news media requester may use “editorial skills” to turn “raw materials into a distinct work” when writing documents such as press releases and editorial comments.  This understanding broadens the potential pool of news media requesters and our recommendation tracks language from the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Cause of Action.  Although, in this respect, we did not recommend any specific changes to the final rule the SEC nevertheless acknowledged our comments by stating that it “will consider Cause of Action and any other relevant precedents in applying the fee provisions in its regulations.”

Americans have an interest in living free and prosperous lives without the interference of arbitrary and abusive executive power.  One of the ways CoA Institute monitors government overreach is by fighting for access to information on the federal government’s activities.  Our successful comment is a small but important victory in our work to ensure a transparent government that works for the benefit of all Americans.

Chris Klein is a Research Fellow at Cause of Action Institute

Media, Blog Learn More
06/26/2018

CoA Institute Files FOIA Lawsuit for Internet Browsing Records of OMB’s Mulvaney and USDA’s Perdue

WASHINGTON, D.C. – JUNE 26, 2018– Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) sued the White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and the Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) today for failure to disclose records reflecting top officials’ Internet browsing history.  The records at issue—which were the subject of two July 2017 Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests (here and here)—include the web browsing histories of OMB Director John Mulvaney and USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue, as well as their communications directors, on any government-issued electronic devices.

Cause of Action Institute Counsel Ryan Mulvey said, “The taxpayer foots the bill for the government’s Internet usage; the taxpayer deserves to know whether bureaucrats are behaving as proper stewards of their online resources.  Agencies must be held accountable for their refusal to disclose vital information about the operations of the administrative state.  The public has a right to know what websites are being accessed in the course of official agency business.  Not only would such records reveal the sorts of resources that have influenced decision-making, but they also could expose questionable or inappropriate online activity by government employees.”

To date, OMB has failed to respond to CoA Institute’s 2017 FOIA request.  USDA has responded but refuses to release the requested records because it believes they are not under agency “control” and would entail the “creation” of a new record.  CoA Institute disputes both claims.

The operation of an Internet browser typically creates an electronic record of the user’s online activity.  This record is stored locally and is accessible through the browser’s “History” function.  In this case, the requested records were created on government computers, integrated into their file systems, and can be used by agency officials as they see fit, subject to any applicable record retention laws.  This means that such records fall under “agency” control and should be available to the public, particularly given past scandals involving the abuse and misuse of Internet-based programs.

The full complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, can be found here.

For more information, please contact Mary Beth Gombita, mbgcomms@gmail.com.

Media, Press Release Learn More