Electronic Privacy Information Center v. National Security Agency

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that an agency need not “conduct a search” before issuing a Glomar response
• explaining that because the court found a submitted declaration “sufficient to support” Glomar response, requiring the agency “to conduct a search and segregability analysis would be a meaningless—not to mention costly— exercise”
• upholding a Glomar response because confirming the existence of records would hinder a part of the NSA’s public mission
• district courts, in Glomar case, may grant summary judgment on the basis of agency affidavits “if they are not called into question by contradictory evidence in the record”
• “A plaintiff asserting a claim of prior disclosure bears the burden of pointing to ‘specific information in the public domain that appears to duplicate that being withheld.’ ”
• cases in which agencies conducted searches “of [their] own volition prior to issuing [a] Glomar response” did not “hold—or even imply—that such a search . . . is required”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).