Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that requests for factual information relating to a decision, and requests for assistance in gathering such information, were not deliberative
• holding that requests for factual information relating to a decision, and requests for assistance in gathering such information, were not deliberative
• requiring disclosure of records in which “no agency policy is being debated or discussed” even though the “[records] are, in the most general sense, part of an intra- agency discussion relating” to agency’s decisionmaking
• finding factual material “does not reflect the personal opinions of the writer, nor is it so candid or personal in nature that public disclosure is likely in the future to stifle honest and frank communication”
• requiring 19 disclosure of redactions in which “no agency policy is being debated or discussed” even though the “redactions are, in the most general sense, part of an intra-agency discussion relating” to agency’s response to media inquiry
• listing three rationales for deliberative process privilege

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).