Bonner v. Federal Bureau Of Investigation

Background

Raymond Bonner, a journalist, sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). He sought records concerning Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation and detention. During the case, the parties narrowed the dispute to redactions in two groups of jointly controlled records: a handwritten notebook prepared by former FBI agent Ali Soufan and typewritten summaries prepared by Soufan and former FBI agent Stephen Gaudin.

The agencies produced records with redactions and later removed some redactions after additional review. Bonner continued to challenge the remaining redactions, except for certain undercover-agent names and CIA black-site locations. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, a procedure used to resolve a case when the court determines that no genuine dispute over a material fact requires a trial.

Issue and governing law

The court addressed 1,586 redactions claimed under FOIA Exemption 3. That exemption permits an agency to withhold information specifically protected from disclosure by another statute. The agencies relied on the National Security Act, which protects intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. The court noted that it did not need to decide whether FOIA Exemption 1 also applied because Exemption 3 independently covered the information at issue.

Bonner made two principal arguments. First, he argued that the redacted information did not reveal intelligence sources and methods. Second, he argued that the agencies had officially acknowledged the information in public sources and therefore could not continue withholding it.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that the agencies’ public and classified declarations adequately explained why the redactions could reveal intelligence sources and methods. The declarations described information concerning raw intelligence from Zubaydah, his knowledge of and interactions with members of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, detention-facility locations, names and identifying details, dates, locations, meetings, operations, and security techniques. The court gave substantial weight to the agencies’ explanations because of the national-security interests involved and concluded that the withheld information was reasonably expected to disclose, or lead to the disclosure of, intelligence sources and methods.

The court rejected Bonner’s official-disclosure argument. Under the standard applied by the court, an official disclosure must be as specific as the withheld information, match that information, and be made publicly through an official and documented disclosure. The court found that the books, reports, government materials, testimony, and other sources cited by Bonner did not establish that the withheld information met those requirements. In particular, books written by former government employees—including Soufan—were not official disclosures by the FBI or CIA, and agency review or approval of a former employee’s book did not change that conclusion.

The court also stated that, when the agencies determined that some information could be released after reviewing Bonner’s objections, they removed the corresponding redactions. It found no basis to conclude that the agencies had acted in bad faith.

Disposition

Judge Engelmayer granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment and denied Bonner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at docket numbers 41 and 47. The ruling resolved the disputed claims already briefed, but the court stated that it would address additional CIA claims under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3 in a supplemental order if necessary.