Fern M. Smith

“ The government's general theory for its Exemption 7 (A) withholdings, however, is equally valid today as it was in 1994. Although convictions have been obtained against several of the immigration fraud defendants and against several of the murder defendants in the past four years, there are defendants in both cases who remain fugitives. Because both cases appear to be still open, the changed circumstances do not mandate a different result. ”

“ This position raises two questions: whether it is proper for the Court to analyze the present validity of the claimed exemption, and whether the result would be different if such an analysis is performed. The Court answers the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative.
Under District of Columbia Circuit precedent, courts ordinarily evaluate the correctness of an agency's FOIA decision as of the time it was made. See Bonner v. Dept. of State, 289 U.S. App. D.C. 56, 928 F.2d 1148, 1152 (D.C. Cir. 1991) . ”

“ It need not justify a 7 (A) withholding on a document-by-document basis, however; instead, it may do so by category. See Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 252 U.S. App. D.C. 232, 789 F.2d 64, 67 (D.C. Cir. 1986) . The categories must be functional, allowing "the court to trace a rational link between the nature of the document and the alleged likely interference." ”