Haitian Bridge Alliance v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Background

Haitian Bridge Alliance, African Communities Together, and UndocuBlack Network sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Their requests sought records concerning the treatment, processing, transfer, and removal of migrants who were in Del Rio, Texas, during September 2021.

The parties negotiated a May 2023 proposal that reformulated disputed portions of the plaintiffs’ original request. They reached an impasse over four matters: the plaintiffs’ proposed additions called Requests 6 and 7; the search terms to be used for certain custodians’ emails; and a proposed schedule requiring each agency to produce 1,500 pages per month. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The opinion states that the Bureau of Prisons had produced responsive records and was not relevant to these motions, and that the February 2022 request was still being processed but was not disputed in the motions.

Legal standard

Under FOIA, a request must reasonably describe the records sought. The agency must be able to determine precisely what records are requested, and agency employees familiar with the subject must be able to locate those records with a reasonable amount of effort. On summary judgment, an agency may rely on reasonably detailed declarations from knowledgeable officials when those declarations are not contradicted by evidence or evidence of bad faith.

Requests 6 and 7

The court held that the disputed portions of Request 6 were unreasonable. The proposed request sought records about individual migrants’ requests for necessities, the amounts and frequency of supplies provided, health-related events, processing documents, and detailed personal information. The court agreed with agency officials that the request would require searches of virtually all communications, migrant health records, operational communications, law-enforcement databases, and individual immigration files. The court also noted that the plaintiffs’ wording did not sufficiently limit the request to aggregate data.

The court likewise held that Request 7 was overbroad. It sought records about water flow, use of force, treatment of migrants, legal authority for arrest or removal, destination countries, detention or release decisions, and migrant processing. The court found that the request would require review of a vast amount of material and would force the agencies to guess which records were not already covered by earlier requests. The disputed portions of Request 6 and all of Request 7 therefore could not be added to the May 2023 Proposal.

Search terms

The court held that the DHS defendants could exercise their discretion to create initial search terms reasonably tailored to finding responsive records. FOIA requesters could not dictate the agencies’ search terms at this stage. Because the searches and production were not complete, and the agencies had not yet submitted declarations about the adequacy of their completed searches, the plaintiffs’ challenge was premature. The court stated that the plaintiffs could challenge the adequacy of the searches later, if appropriate, after the agencies completed their searches and production.

Production schedule

The court declined to impose the plaintiffs’ proposed production schedule of 1,500 pages per month for each agency. It explained that FOIA’s deadline for an agency to determine whether it will comply with a request is not a deadline for producing all records. Although the agencies did not meet the statutory deadlines to communicate their determinations, the plaintiffs’ remedy for that failure was to sue, which they did. The court found that the agencies’ stated commitments to process 500 pages per month for Customs and Border Protection, 750 pages per month for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and 400 pages per month for Homeland Security satisfied their obligation to process the requests promptly at this stage.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the DHS defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Requests 6 and 7, the agencies’ discretion to craft reasonable search terms for Section D of the May 2023 Proposal, and the proposed production schedule. The plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment was denied. The court limited the October 2021 request to the May 2023 Proposal as modified by the DHS defendants and directed the parties to appear for a telephonic status conference.