Frugone v. Central Intelligence Agency

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that disclosures are not “official” when “made by someone other than the agency from which the information is being sought”
• holding that official disclosure must be from “agency from which the information is being sought”
• stating that, “mindful that courts have little expertise in either international 5 diplomacy or counterintelligence operations, we are in no position to dismiss the CIA’s facially reasonable concerns” regarding harm that disclosure could cause to national security
• refusing to “treat the statements of the [Office of 10 Personnel Management] . . . as tantamount to an official statement of 11 the CIA”
• upholding the CIA’s Glomar response despite official disclosure of the same information by the Office of Personnel Management
• upholding the CIA's Glomar response despite official disclosure of the same information by the Office of Personnel Management

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).