The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to D seeking 'records pertaining to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs/drones) by D and the Armed Forces for the purpose of killing targeted individuals.' D responded with a 'Glomar response,' declining either to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records. D's Agency Release Panel accepted an administrative appeal but failed to make a determination within twenty days as FOIA requires. P sued D seeking the immediate processing and release of the requested records. D moved for summary judgment claiming Exemptions 1 and 3 under the FOIA. D rejected the contention that there had been official public acknowledgments that warranted overriding D's exemption claims. D submitted the affidavit of Mary Ellen Cole, the Information Review Officer for D's National Clandestine Service, who explained at some length why the CIA believed its Glomar response was justified. The district court granted the D's motion for summary judgment. The court held D was not required to confirm or deny that it had any responsive records, let alone describe any specific documents it might have or explain why any such documents were exempt from disclosure. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.