Courts Already Heeding Obama's New FOIA Policy

[babylonsister]

Courts Pay Attention to New FOIA Policy


A skeptical person might presume that the new Freedom of Information Act policy announced by Attorney General Eric Holder on March 19 declaring that agencies should “adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure” is a rhetorical posture without much practical significance.

After all, requesters who used FOIA during the Clinton era know that agencies frequently withheld information even when it would have caused no “foreseeable harm,” despite the policy of Attorney General Reno that such information should be released. (Nor, for that matter, did agencies during the Bush Administration always withhold information every time they were legally entitled to do so, as the Ashcroft policy advised.)

But remarkably, federal courts are already considering the new Holder policy in response to plaintiff requests and are modifying the course of pending FOIA litigation as a result.

In one case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked a court to stay a proceeding and to order the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice to reconsider their denial of requested records by employing the new Holder guidelines. Those agencies opposed the idea. But in a March 23 opinion (pdf), Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California granted the EFF motion.

Likewise, in another EFF FOIA lawsuit this week, Judge John D. Bates ordered (pdf) the Department of Justice “to evaluate whether the new FOIA guidelines affect the scope of its disclosures and claimed withholdings in this case.”

more...

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/03/attention_foia.html

[babylonsister]

1. Kicking to share some good news... nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. I see at least one group does not understand the separation of powers

That the independent Federal judiciary is "heeding" the new Executive branch policy is utter nonsense.

Yes I agree with the new policy, but it has nothing to do with ongoing court appeals. What is surprising is that the Federal government has not withdrawn some of it refusals from the Bush era.

[autorank]

3. This is OUTSTANDING. A bit of elaboration

This is outstanding. I'm encouraged by the move because it underlies so much more that is at
stake with retaking our rights as citizens, The courts no longer have their cover. The
Gonzo crowd is gone, but not forgotten.

I was encouraged when charges were dropped against Susan Lindauer.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0901/S00210.htm

(Jan. 16, Wash. DC) The Department of Justice entered a motion to drop all charges against Susan Lindauer yesterday morning, Jan. 15, 2009. The filing (see below) at the federal district court in lower Manhattan ends the government's attempt to prosecute her for allegedly acting as an "unregistered agent" for Iraq. Since her arrest in early 2004, she has repeatedly asked for a trial to present evidence that she had been a United States intelligence asset since the early 1990's.

-----------

This was five days before the inauguration. It was known that Holder was doing a transition review
of the DOJ US Attorney offices. NYC, Southern District had to be high on the list since they'd
been the source of controversy and also due to the critical nature of the office. The dismissal
was to take place and then delayed a couple of time. It was to take place after the 20th, meaning
it would look like Obama's DOJ did it. Unfair, to say the least, since the Bush DOJ made the mess.
Then all of a sudden, bingo, the charges were dropped on the 15th. I don't know this for sure, but
my educated speculation is this - they were told to clean up the case and get rid of it. There was
a delay to pin it on Obama as one last parting shot by this politicized office. I'd bet a Franklin
that they were told, 'You made this mess, you clean it up.' If that's correct, this was one of
the first corrections of the horrid Bush-Cheney record on human rights (the case is an outrage)
and it was handled very skillfully - justice, responsibility assigned (to BushCo since they dismissed
it), and low key.

[babylonsister]

4. Hey, autorank! Thanks for weighing in, and nice to see you!

:pals:

[autorank]

7. It is a good sign

I'd like the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and all the other stuff put in a single
bill and repealed. That's one of the many reasons I'm not president (the others are too
tawdry to mention in polite company or even here;).

But it's one step at a time then the pace will pick up.

I'm speculating to some degree here, although the time line is factual. I just think Holder made
it happen and on fair terms that were also good for Obama.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[babylonsister]

5. Dupe, cause I meant it! nt

[Hissyspit]

6. It seems I remember hearing about that, but thanks for the reminder. I hope that your speculation is

accurate.

[autorank]

8. Me too

I can make a better argument that the BushCo DOJ didn't do it.

The Republicans were so desperate that they cooked up a case to throw Lindauer in a Federal Prison - BEFORE TRIAL - for an "evaluation" based on total b.s. Half of the competency evidence was kept from Mukasey, her judge at the time. Had he seen it, reports from Maryland docs that said she was just fine, he would have questions the stacked deck he got from the court appointed docs in NYC. The prosecutor who denied Lindauer a trial for five years left the case in Sept. to run the "Palin Truth Squad" in Alaska for McCain. No love for Lindauer there. The Judge was carrying water for BushCo by keeping Lindauer away from a trial. She had done that successfully in September in one of the worst rulings ever on competency. There was no need to do this for a person that the WH and other Iraq War fanatics hated. In fact, in their sadistic approach to Lindauer, there was every reason to expect that her charges would never be dropped while the Republicans wer in office.

So, they didn't do it voluntarily. That leaves Holder. He could surprise us at some point, in a big way.