article: On July 31, 2017, plaintiff, the Democracy Project, Inc., filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief against defendants Department of State, Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The plaintiff is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization whose focus is on informing the public of operations and activities of the government by gathering and disseminating information likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of executive branch operations and activities. On April 6, 2017, President Trump ordered Tomahawk cruise missile strikes against a Syrian-government airbase without obtaining prior authorization from Congress (a Syrian-based policy promised by former President Barack Obama) and without articulating the legal justification for the strikes. The plaintiff submitted FOIA requests to the defendants the following day for all records “reflecting, discussing, or otherwise relating” to the strike “and/or the President’s legal authority to launch such a strike”. The plaintiff asked for these requests to be processed on an expedited basis. About one month later, having received none of the requested documents and having two of its expedited processing requests denied, the plaintiff brought this suit and filed a motion for preliminary injunction to have the documents produced by a date certain. On July 13, 2017, U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, directing the defendants to process the FOIA requests on an expedited basis, but not by a certain date, and to limit the request to documents specifically related to the legal justifications for the April 6, 2017 Syria Strikes. 263 F.Supp.3d 293. On September 8, 2017, the defendants made a production pursuant to the FOIA requests, but the plaintiff contested that the production was too heavily redacted and insufficient. On November 17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, with the plaintiff filing a cross-motion for summary judgment on December 8, 2017, on the question of whether the defendants’ withholding of some documents was justified under various FOIA exemptions. On April 25, 2018, Judge Cooper, in reviewing the parties’ cross-motions, determined that he needed to also review the documents before it could resolve the dispute, and he ordered that the defendants produce documents that it had claimed were exempted under FOIA for an in-camera review by the court. On May 4, 2018, the defendants complied with the order and delivered the documents to the court. On August 21, 2018, Judge Cooper granted in part and denied in part each party’s motion for summary judgment. 320 F.Supp.3d 162. He found that, for the most part, the defendants’ withholdings were justified; however, he also found that some information in the documents had already been officially acknowledged, so that the defendants could not withhold that information. As of March 23, 2019, there has been no further filings or movement in the case, and the case appears to be closed.
summary: Plaintiff, The Democracy Project, Inc., filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking injunctive relief against Defendants Department of State, Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The Court granted a preliminary injunction for the production of all documents related to President Trump's legal justifications for his order of the April 6, 2017 Tomahawk cruise missile strikes against a Syrian-government airbase. The Plaintiff contested the sufficiency of this production, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On August 21, 2018, Judge Cooper granted in part and denied in part each party’s motion for summary judgment. He found that, for the most part, the defendants’ withholdings were justified; however, he also found that some information in the documents had already been officially acknowledged, so that the defendants could not withhold that information. As of March 23, 2019, there has been no further filings or movement in the case, and the case appears to be closed.