Supreme Court Makes the Right Decision in FOIA Case, Taylor v. Sturgell

On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a FOIA requester in Taylor v. Sturgell (No. 07-371), reversing the D.C. Circuit’s decision denying a FOIA requester access to documents on the grounds of issue preclusion. The Supreme Court reinstated Mr. Taylor’s FOIA case that had been dismissed on res judicata grounds because a prior FOIA requester was a "close associate" of Mr. Taylor's, and had allegedly been his "virtual representative" in a prior FOIA case that was brought unsuccessfully seeking the same documents.


In reversing, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the “virtual representation” doctrine that the D.C. Circuit had relied upon to preclude Mr. Taylor from litigating the denial of his FOIA request in federal court. Public Citizen Litigation Group successfully represented Mr. Taylor before the Supreme Court.


Additionally, the Supreme Court cited to an amicus brief filed by the National Security Archives, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the National Whistleblower Center.

See, Whistleblower Protection Blog (Feb. 27, 2008) for more information on the amicus brief.



Supreme Court Amicus Brief Filed in support of FOIA Requesters

The National Whistleblower Center has joined an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court to support the rights of FOIA requesters.  The amicus brief was filed by the National Security Archive, OpenTheGovernment.org, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the National Whistleblower Center, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. 

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here>>.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Taylor v. Sturgell  (No. 07-371) to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision denying a FOIA requester access to documents on the grounds of issue preclusion.  The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of Taylor’s FOIA case on res judicata grounds because a prior FOIA requester was a "close associate" of Taylor's, and had been his "virtual representative" in a prior FOIA case that was brought unsuccessfully seeking the same documents.  The principal reason the D.C. Circuit held that the second FOIA case was barred by res judicata was that both FOIA requesters were represented by the same attorney in both cases.

Amici argue that “virtual representation applied in a FOIA matter raises serious concerns. FOIA requests are filed by many different people for many different reasons... No one lawsuit will achieve FOIA's public purpose (or, indeed, another requester's individual interest); the statute is designed to fulfill the public part of its purpose through many individuals each reminding federal agencies that they cannot operate in secret."

If res judicata is broadly applied to FOIA cases, then citizens will be denied access to records when there are multiple FOIA requesters making requests for information on the same subject matter.  Advocacy groups, journalists, researchers, scientists or historians may all have an interest in seeking records on the same subject matter, but that does not mean that each requester’s interest is the same.  Because many different reasons may apply to the denial of FOIA requests from different requesters at different times, one FOIA requester should not be automatically barred by the denial of requests made by another.

Related Documents:

The SCOTUS Blog has more on the case on this page


New FOIA Law Contains Long Overdue Improvements


President Bush has signed into law the first legislation in more than a decade to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act. The Open Government Act of 2007, signed by Bush on New Years eve, contains several important changes and improvements to the Freedom of Information Act.


The new law establishes enforceable deadlines for agencies to process FOIA requests; extends FOIA's reach to certain records maintained by government contractors; establishes an ombudsman to resolve disputes; creates a FOIA tracking system; restores provisions for recovery of attorneys fees by FOIA litigants who successfully prevail in court, including cases where there is a voluntary or unilateral change in the government's position after filing of the lawsuit, so long as the FOIA requester's claim is not insubstantial; and requires that any award of attorneys fees be paid out of an agency's budget and not the Treasury Department's judgment fund.


Legislative improvements to FOIA were long overdue and the Open Government Act of 2007 is intended to speed up citizen access to government information. The Freedom of Information Act is an essential tool to assist whistleblowers, journalists, citizens and watchdog groups discover what their government is up to and provide outside oversight of government activities.


A copy of the Open Government Act of 2007 is linked here

NWC Logo

Man Convicted on Faulty FBI Bullet-Lead Evidence Heading Back to Court

Today's Washington Post has an update on the FBI Bullet-Lead debacle. Lee Wayne Hunt , a North Carolina man who has maintained his innocence since being convicted of murder in 1986, is appealing his case to the North Carolina Supreme Court. 

This is not Mr. Hunt's first appeal, but this time he is doing so with the help of information obtained by the National Whistleblower Center's Forensic Justice Project. The FJP's lawsuits against the FBI produced a wealth of documents detailing how thousands of cases, including Mr. Hunt's, were prosecuted on the basis of a faulty forensic science known as bullet-lead analysis.

Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, a former FBI Special Agent and forensic expert, is the Executive Director of the FJP.

 

Senate Committee Taking Action on Bullet-Lead Cases

Yesterday, John Solomon of the Washington Post reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee is requiring that the FBI turn over records related to all criminal cases in which bullet-lead analysis was presented as evidence. There are over 2,500 such cases nationwide.

Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, the Executive Director of the Forensic Justice Project (a project of the National Whistleblower Center) has filed three lawsuits against the FBI since 1996 in an effort to obtain release of these records. Unfortunately, the FBI has never been fully compliant with the FJPs FOIA requests, and has engaged in extensive feet-dragging and stonewalling, even so far as demanding that the FJP pay over $70,000 for access to these public records.  

The Senate's action is in response to years of work by the FJP, which led to a joint investigation by the Washington Post and 60 Minutes.

 

Click here to read the article

Bullet-Lead Case Records and Stonewalling by the FBI

On November 18, 2007, the results of an investigation into the operations of the FBI crime lab were printed in the Washington Post and broadcast on CBS News 60 Minutes. The Forensic Justice Project (“FJP”), a project of the National Whistleblower Center, in Washington, D.C., and FJP Executive Director Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, cooperated with the joint Post-60 Minutes investigation by providing records released by the FBI to FJP and Dr. Whitehurst under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). These FBI FOIA records document the serious misconduct and other problems reported in the joint Post-60 Minutes investigation.


By way of background, since 1996 it has taken no fewer than three separate lawsuits filed on behalf of either Dr. Frederic Whitehurst or the Forensic Justice Project (or both) under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain records regarding FBI Laboratory scandals. In each and every case, the FBI has delayed and stonewalled the release of records documenting misconduct in the FBI Lab, including the problems identified in the Washington Post-60 Minutes investigation.


The FOIA cases are:


1. Whitehurst v. FBI, Civil Action No. 96-572 (GK) (D.D.C.):


This was the original case filed on behalf of Dr. Whitehurst and it alleged that the FBI was refusing to process FOIA requests made on Dr. Whitehurst’s behalf in 1993 and 1995. These requests sought access to records about Dr. Whitehurst’s whistleblower allegations about serious problems in the FBI Lab, which also became the subject of a U.S. Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) review of the FBI Lab. Dr. Whitehurst’s lawsuit also alleged that records about Whitehurst and his allegations that were responsive to the FOIA requests were being selectively released by the FBI to criminal defendants, the courts, members of Congress, but were being denied to Dr. Whitehurst.


On February 5, 1997, Judge Gladys Kessler ordered the FBI to release all records responsive to these requests. See the order here


This lawsuit was later expanded to include Dr. Whitehurst’s FOIA requests for copies of the Justice Department’s OIG report and work product.


Ultimately, this lawsuit was settled and part of the settlement covered granting Dr. Whitehurst a fee waiver and access to thousands of pages of records on his whistleblower allegations and the FBI Lab scandal.


2. Forensic Justice Project v. FBI, Civil Action No. 04-1415 (PLF) (D.D.C.):


This FOIA case against the FBI was filed on behalf of the FJP in 2004 and requested access to records of various FBI Lab examiners who had testified in criminal cases regarding bullet lead. The case against the FBI was settled in March 2006, with the FBI agreeing to grant a fee waiver and provide the FJP with the names of defendants and case numbers of cases in which these examiners testified.


This FOIA case also was filed by the FJP against the DOJ for the records of DOJ Criminal Division Brady Task Force review of the FBI Lab scandal and Dr. Whitehurst’s whistleblower allegations. The FOIA case against DOJ on the Brady Task Force records was settled on December 9, 2005, with the DOJ agreeing to grant a fee waiver to FJP and produce on a rolling basis records from the Brady Task Force review.


The FJP provided all of these records to the Washington Post and these FBI records on bullet lead provided important leads for the Washington Post-60 Minutes investigation.


3. Forensic Justice Project and Whitehurst v. FBI and DOJ, Civil Action No. 06-1001 (RWR) (D.D.C.):


This FOIA action was filed in 2006 and is currently pending. See the Complaint 

The FOIA request was filed with the FBI in September 2005 seeking copies of all records related to the comparative bullet lead cases and records related to the decision to stop using comparative bullet lead analysis that were referred to in a September 2, 2005 FBI press release. See the Original FOIA Request With FBI Press Release Attached


The FBI has refused to grant a fee waiver forcing the FJP and Dr. Whitehurst to appeal and then go to court. Reporter John Solomon of the Washington Post also wrote a letter informing the FBI and DOJ that he was interested in reviewing the records requested by FJP and Whitehurst. In February 2007 the FBI acknowledged that there exist approximately 250,000 records responsive to this request but the FBI demands that Dr. Whitehurst and the FJP pay approximately $70,000 to process this FOIA request.


The records responsive to this request are the actual case file records for all of the comparative bullet lead cases handled by the FBI Lab based on flawed science prior to the FBI’s decision to stop using comparative bullet lead analysis in criminal cases. In its September 2, 2005 Press Release, the FBI itself identified more than 500 cases where convictions were obtained using the scientifically flawed comparative bullet lead analysis. In addition, the FBI identified thousands of other criminal cases where comparative bullet lead analysis had been used prior to its discontinuance.


Continue Reading...

Bullet-Lead and The Forensic Justice Project

The entry below is a special contribution from Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, the Executive Director of the Forensic Justice Project (a special project of the National Whistleblower Center)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The justice system needs answers, and science never comes up with final answers. Science often discovers that previous answers to questions were not valid. When forensic science renders opinions in courts of law that are in the future found to be no longer valid, such as in the case of bullet-lead analysis, then we have no mechanisms to revisit the cases where people were unfairly accused. The FBI and the DOJ have for the past nine years strongly resisted efforts by the Forensic Justice Project to determine the names of those defendants who were treated unfairly as a result of bad forensic science.


One would assume that the reason for this lack of cooperation would be the perceived liability from discovery of falsely accused individuals who have spent years, possibly decades, incarcerated after being falsely accused by forensic science. Whatever the reason, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation take an oath of office before receipt of their badges and credentials. That oath includes their willingness to enforce the law and uphold the US Constitution. That oath means that citizens become more important to FBI Agents than those agents are to themselves. It would seem that the US Department of Justice would agressively seek to protect the safety of all citizens, regardless of the source of any harm coming to those citizens. And therefore when the FBI Crime Laboratory makes mistakes and those mistakes harm US citizens, the FBI and the US DOJ should aggressively pursue making those citizens aware that they have been tried unfairly and offer any assistance necessary to make those citizens whole. The last thing the US DOJ should do is what has been done, to aggressively stop parties from discovery of those citizens harmed. It is obvious that the US DOJ does not have the assets or moral fiber needed to function fairly in this way. Therefore private citizen groups need to acquire the information from investigative files and make that information available and assist individuals who have been harmed by bad forensic science from the FBI Lab or any other crime lab.


Following revelations in 1997 of wrong doing and invalid science at the FBI Crime Lab, the Forensic Justice Project set about determining those individuals who had been harmed. With the mantra, "Stop It, Fix It, and Find Out Who Was Harmed" the Forensic Justice Project acquired a vast amount of information to determine the real reasons for the perceived problems. FJP makes that information available to parties all over the world, looking only for feedback of information from the recipients. The model built has been one of acquiring transcripts, data, lab reports and other information in order to determine the real issues associated with "bad" forensic science. Going beyond the simple "He said, She said" arguments that get nowhere, FJP has acquired the underlying data for open review. The team built around any issue involves criminal defense attorneys (who provide transcripts of testimony and laboratory work product), aggressive Freedom of Information inquiries, scientists who have been willing to provide a great deal of research resulting in papers written in the scientific literature, and victim defendants who are more than willing to share all of their data.


The project works on a shoe-string budget with individual participants conducting their individual parts on a pro-bono basis.


Dr. Frederic Whitehurst
Executive Director
Forensic Justice Project

Washington Post Bullet-Lead Story; Check Back Tonight for Updates.

The Washington Post-60 Minutes investigation, published in today's Washington Post, has confirmed that the convictions of hundreds of defendants have come into question because a bullet-lead analysis used for 40 years has been discredited and the FBI has failed for more than 2 years to properly notify those convicted about these problems. Read The Article 


Later tonight, after the 60 Minutes special begins, you can visit this blog for further information on the bullet-lead issue. We will have original documents from the FOIA lawsuit, as well as blog posts from former FBI Crime Lab whistleblower (and Executive Director of the Forensic Justice Project) Dr. Frederic Whitehurst and the General Counsel for the National Whistleblower Center, David Colapinto.

Freedom of Information Act FAQ

What is the Freedom of Information Act?


FOIA, also known as 5 U.S.C. 522, was passed in 1966 and amended in 1974. It allows the public better access to government records. With these records, the public can find out what the government knows about them and what types of policies agencies use to govern the public.

FOIA is a valuable tool for whistleblowers as they obtain records that they would not be able to obtain otherwise.


What does the law call for?

The law is actually broken up into two parts: The first part calls for all government agencies to publish the following in the Federal Registrar:

  • Descriptions of an agencies central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make requests, or obtain decisions 
  • Statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available; 
  • Rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations; 
  • Substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and 
  • Each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing final orders of administrative cases, federal government agency statements of policy, manuals used by an agency's staff whose policies within apply to the public, and indexes of materials that can be accessed by the public.

While these sections may seem confusing, the second part of the law is what makes it one of the best pieces of legislation passed on behalf of the American Public. The law allows for the public to view the records of agencies. Anyone can find out how an agency is spending its money, the reasoning behind their policies, and the intended effect of the agencies policies.


What are considered records?

  • Final decisions in particular administrative cases
  • Policy statements that the agency uses, but hasn't published in the Federal Register,
  • Internal manuals written for the agency's staff that affect members of the public
  • An index of the kinds of information that must be made public.

The law also allows the public to see other types of records that were not enumerated above and the courts have interpreted this broadly.


How is an Agency Defined?

Agencies are defined as agencies that have executive position of the cabinet, independent regulatory committee (like the Federal Communication Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), and corporations that are owned by the federal government like the U.S. Postal Service and Amtrak. However the following are exceptions to FOIA:

  • Laws passed by Congress
  • Federal court decisions
  • Records of agencies that are part of the executive branch whose sole purpose is to advise the President.

Other restrictions of the law deal with the types of information that are exempt from the FOIA. These exemptions are:

  • National Security Information
  • Internal Agency Rules
  • Information Exempted by Other Statues
  • Business Information
  • Inter-and Intra- Agency Memoranda
  • Personal Privacy Information
  • Law Enforcement Records/Ongoing Investigations
  • Records of Financial Institutions
  • Oil Well Data


How do I start my FOIA request?

If you would like to request records under the FOIA, you must submit it in writing to the appropriate agency. All agencies have a freedom of information officer who processes the requests. The letter must be as clear as possible stating what information you are requesting and the purpose of the information. Several common types for requests are:

  • Commercial Use
  • Private Information Use
  • Scientific or Educational Use
  • Mass Media Use


What are some tips to expedite my request?

Try to limit your request to only the information that you want. If you tell the agency that you just want everything ever related to the subject, you might give the agency an excuse to delay its response, or deny it flat out. Some other tips are: 

  • If you know that your request involves a great volume of records, try to state both what your request includes and what it does not include.
  • Be as specific as possible. Cite relevant newspaper clips, articles, congressional reports, etc. If the records have already been released, let the agency know the date, release number, and name of the original requester. 
  • Let the agency know if you'd like to receive information in a particular order. Materials could be reviewed and released to you in chronological or geographical order - or you may simply not want to wait for all the records to be reviewed before any are released.

 

Does it cost anything to complete a FOIA request?

Many of the agencies charge costs related to the search for the materials desired. The three types of charges are 

  1. Charges to search for the requested information
  2. Costs related to deciding what information to include in your request
  3. Reproduction related fees.

The types of costs you pay will depend on why you are requesting the information. Your costs can be reduced, for example, if the information is for public distribution versus commercial use. Each agency has to tell you how much these costs are before your request is processed.

If you feel you should not be obligated to pay the related fees, you can ask for a fee waiver in your request. Agencies may grant fee waivers if the requested information is to be publicly disseminated. How long does it take to process a FOIA request?

By law, the agency has to respond to your request within ten days. However agencies can take up to an additional ten days due to backlog or difficulties in finding the information you are requesting. If all or part of your request is denied then you may file a FOIA appeal. Agencies have 20 days to respond to your appeal. The agency will send you a letter acknowledging your appeal and your case will be assigned a number. If they do not respond in those 20 days, you have a right to take your claim to federal district court. However, if after the first response you still have not received any of your requested documents, the agency must send you a letter stating the reason for the delay.

 

Where do I send my request?

As stated above, each agency has an office or an officer dedicated to processing FOIA requests. A good place to find which agency you should be requesting is government publications which list offices or many government web sites have pages dedicated to FOIA requests.


What should my FOIA Request look like? 

Click to view a sample FOIA Request

Click to view a sample FOIA Appeal


Where can I find more information?

Related Links:

Bill Text of the Freedom of Information Act

E.P.A FOIA Web Page

F.B.I. FOIA Web Page 

U.S. Department of Justice FOIA page

U.S. Department of Labor FOIA page