Fern M. Smith

Name: Institute for Justice and Human Rights vs. Executive Office of the United States Attorney and Immigration and Naturalization Service
Author: Fern M. Smith

Institute for Justice and Human Rights vs…

Summary

“Institute for Justice and Human Rights vs. Executive Office of the United States Attorney and Immigration and Naturalization Service”, is a work by Fern M. Smith. It explores elements such as categories, documents and release.

Quotes from Institute for Justice and Human Rights vs… (Fern M. Smith)

Fern M. Smith, Institute for Justice and Human Rights vs…

“ C. Freedom of Information Act C. Freedom of Information Act The Freedom of Information Act requires that agencies make their records available to the public upon request. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a) . Under Exemption 7 (A) , however, agencies may withhold "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes" the release of which "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings." 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (7) (A) . The government must prove the possibility of interference by something "more than a conclusory statement." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Fern M. Smith, Institute for Justice and Human Rights vs…

“ If the nonmoving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial, "the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Fern M. Smith, Institute for Justice and Human Rights vs…

“ Four of the six categories asserted by the EOUSA are similarly problematic. The Court has no way of determining whether the release of "agency reports" would interfere with the ongoing prosecutions; it depends on the subject matter of the reports. Information about the identity of a confidential informant would plainly interfere with ongoing law-enforcement proceedings, but that is not necessarily true of all documents related to "a confidential informant." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Fern M. Smith, Institute for Justice and Human Rights vs…

“ 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. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Fern M. Smith, Institute for Justice and Human Rights vs…

“ 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) . ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Fern M. Smith, Institute for Justice and Human Rights vs…

“ 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." ”

Fern M. Smith

Summary

Quotes from Institute for Justice and Human Rights vs… (Fern M. Smith)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature