Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et
al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01870 (JEB)

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
The government hereby moves to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) or
12(b)(1). The reasons for this motion are set forth in the accompanying memorandum.

Dated: January 21, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
JOYCE R. BRANDA
Acting Assistant Attorney General
RONALD C. MACHEN, Jr.
United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO
Deputy Branch Director
Civil Division

/s/ Vesper Mei
VESPER MEI (D.C. Bar 455778)
Senior Counsel
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 28

20 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-4686
Fax: (202) 616-8470
E-mail: vesper.mei@usdoj.gov
Counsel for the Defendant

-2-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 3 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et
al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01870 (JEB)

GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS
STATEMENT
In this case, brought under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552,
plaintiffs seek the release of the full 6,963 page Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
(“SSCI”) report concerning the CIA’s former detention and interrogation program (“SSCI
Report” or “Full Report”).1 Unlike the report’s Executive Summary and Findings and
Conclusions (“Executive Summary”)—which the SSCI voted to submit to the Executive Branch
for declassification review in April 2014, and publicly released on December 9, 2014—the SSCI
has not voted to either seek to declassify or to release the Full Report. The Full Report therefore
remains a congressional record subject to congressional control and is not an agency record
within the meaning of FOIA. See United We Stand America, Inc. v. I.R.S., 359 F.3d 595, 597
(D.C. Cir. 2004).
1

Plaintiffs seek the Full Report from four agency defendants: the Central Intelligence Agency
(“CIA”), the Department of Defense (“DoD”), the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and the
Department of State (“DOS”).

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 4 of 28

Congress retains control over the Full Report for at least five reasons. First, the
conditions under which the report was created reflect that SSCI as a whole asserted complete
control over not only drafts, but also the final product. Second, throughout the years-long
process of creating and finalizing the Report, both SSCI and the CIA handled the Report in
accordance with SSCI’s instructions and strict limitations on access. Third, SSCI voted, in
accordance with Senate Rules, to seek declassification and release only of the Executive
Summary, Findings and Conclusions – not the Full Report. The then-SSCI Chairman’s decision
to provide the Full Report to certain Executive Branch agencies for nonpublic use does not
amount to a Committee decision to seek to declassify and release the Full Report. Fourth, the
current Chairman of SSCI has reiterated SSCI’s intent to retain control of the Full Report.
Finally, the defendant agencies have treated the Full Report, received in December 2014, as a
congressional record, sequestering it in secure storage space appropriate to its classification and
carefully limiting its dissemination and use. Because the Full Report remains a congressional
record as opposed to an agency record, this Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ FOIA claim
seeking its release, and plaintiffs’ claim should be dismissed under Rule 12(h)(3) or 12(b)(1).2

2

Plaintiffs initially sought the CIA’s Response to the SSCI Report. It, along with the Executive
Summary, findings, and conclusions of the SSCI Report (which plaintiffs did not separately
seek), was released on December 9, 2014. By email dated December 11, 2014, plaintiffs notified
the government that they do not intend to seek any further relief with respect to either the CIA
Response or the SSCI Report Executive Summary. Plaintiffs also seek from the CIA in this case
the release of what plaintiffs refer to as the “Panetta Report,” i.e., an alleged CIA report
concerning its former detention and interrogation program, which Senator Mark Udall referred to
on December 17, 2013, during the confirmation hearing for the CIA’s General Counsel. The
CIA is separately moving for summary judgment on that claim.
-2-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 5 of 28

I.

PLAINTIFFS’ FOIA REQUESTS.
By letter dated February 13, 2013, plaintiffs sent a FOIA request to the Central

Intelligence Agency, seeking “disclosure of the recently adopted report of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence relating to the CIA’s post-9/11 program of rendition, detention, and
interrogation.” Declaration of Neal Higgins, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Central
Intelligence Agency (“Higgins Decl.”) , ¶ 6; Exh. A to Decl. By letter dated February 22, 2013,
the Agency advised plaintiffs that the requested Report was a “Congressionally generated and
controlled document that is not subject to the FOIA’s access provisions” and, accordingly, the
CIA could not accept the request. Higgins Decl.¶ 7; Exh. B to Decl.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on November 26, 2013, and filed an amended complaint on
January 27, 2014. On May 6, 2014, plaintiffs submitted identical new FOIA requests to the CIA,
the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State, seeking “the
updated version of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s Report.” Higgins Decl. ¶ 9;
Exh. C to Decl. See also Declaration of Julia E. Frifield, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of
Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of State (“Frifield Decl.”) ¶ 5; Declaration of Mark H.
Herrington, Associate Deputy General Counsel, Office of Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department
of Defense (“Herrington Decl.”) ¶ 4; Declaration of Peter J. Kadzik, Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice (“Kadzik Decl.”) ¶ 4.
On June 5, 2014, plaintiffs amended their complaint to seek the release of the “Updated
SSCI Report” from not only the CIA, but also the Departments of Defense, Justice, and State.
Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 44-52. The defendants have interpreted this to refer to the most
current version of the Full Report – the version transmitted by the then-Chairman of SSCI to the

-3-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 6 of 28

Executive Branch in December 2014.3 Higgins Decl ¶ 9; Frifield Decl. ¶ 7; Herrington Decl. ¶
5; Kadzik Decl. ¶ 4.
II

SSCI’S TREATMENT OF THE FULL REPORT.
A.

SSCI’s Review of CIA Information and Early Drafting of the SSCI Report.

The SSCI Report was authored by the then-Majority staff of the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, and concerns the CIA’s former detention and interrogation program. Higgins
Decl. ¶ 10. The Report was drafted after extensive discussions with the CIA to reach an
accommodation that respected both the President’s constitutional authority to protect classified
information, and Congress’s constitutional authority to conduct oversight of the Executive.
Higgins Decl. ¶ 11. Thus, SSCI and the CIA sought to protect from public disclosure both the
highly sensitive and compartmented classified information at issue in the Report, information
that necessarily came from the CIA, as well as the autonomy and control that SSCI maintained
over the drafting, finalization, and dissemination of the Report itself. Id. ¶¶ 11-14. In order to
best protect the highly sensitive and compartmented nature of the information at issue, the CIA
established a secure electronic reading room on CIA premises, and created a segregated network
shared drive, where designated SSCI personnel could review the highly classified materials and
confidentially prepare and store their work product, including initial draft versions of the SSCI
Report, in a secure environment. Id. ¶ 11.
From the outset of this process, SSCI insisted that any records created by SSCI personnel
on the segregated shared drive would not become “agency records” even though the material was
created and stored on a CIA computer system. Id. ¶ 12. Specifically, in a June 2, 2009 letter
3

In a status conference held on October 7, 2014, the parties agreed that the ACLU would not
have to submit a new FOIA request or amend their complaint in order to seek to obtain the Full
Report. Transcript of Status Conference (Exhibit 1) at 8.
-4-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 7 of 28

from the SSCI Chairman and Vice Chairman to the CIA Director, the Committee expressly
stated that any records it produced, including “draft and final recommendations, reports, or other
materials generated by Committee staff or Members, are the property of the Committee” and
“remain congressional records in their entirety.” Id.; Higgins Decl. Exh. D. SSCI further
provided that “disposition and control over these records, even after the completion of the
Committee’s review, lies exclusively with the Committee.” Id. As such, the Committee
explicitly stated that “these records are not CIA records under the Freedom of Information Act or
any other law” and that “[t]he CIA may not integrate these records into its records filing systems,
and may not disseminate or copy them, or use them for any purpose without prior written
authorization from the Committee.” Id. The SSCI also stated that in response to a FOIA request
seeking these records, the CIA should “respond to the request or demand based upon the
understanding that these documents are congressional, not CIA, records.” Id.
After reaching these accommodations, SSCI personnel used the segregated shared drive
to draft the initial versions of its Report. Id. ¶ 13. Thereafter, and throughout the drafting
process with the assistance of CIA information technology and security personnel, portions of
the draft report were transferred from the segregated shared drive to secure SSCI facilities at the
U.S. Capitol complex so that the Committee could complete the drafting process in its own
workspaces. Id. Consequently, it is the CIA’s understanding that the version of the Full Report
that was ultimately adopted by the Committee and subsequently provided to the Agency does not
reside on the shared drive. Id. ¶ 14. Nonetheless, the restrictions governing the information on
the shared drive have informed how the CIA has treated SSCI’s work product provided to the
CIA. Id.

-5-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 8 of 28

B.

Approval and Transmission of the Initial Draft.

On December 13, 2012, SSCI decided in closed session to “approve” drafts of the
Executive Summary and Full Report, and to transmit those drafts to the Executive Branch for
review. See SSCI, Committee Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program:
Executive Summary, at 8 (Dec. 3, 2014); available at
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/executive-summary.pdf; see also 158 Cong. Rec.
D1029 (daily ed. Dec. 12, 2012) (SSCI’s December 13, 2012, meeting was a “closed business
meeting”). An e-mail from the SSCI Staff Director to the defendant agencies made it clear that
the motion approved by the Committee imposed various limitations on the agencies’ use of the
Executive Summary and Full Report. Among other things, the Committee’s motion limited
dissemination of the drafts to specific individuals at specific agencies, who would be identified
in advance to the SSCI Chairman. Higgins Decl. Exh. E. The Committee approved granting
access to those individuals for the limited purpose of providing edits and comments in response
to the 2012 draft Report. Id.
C.

SSCI’s April 2014 Decision to Send the Executive Summary to the President
for Declassification.

SSCI revised the Executive Summary and Full Report after considering the CIA’s
comments. SSCI, Executive Summary, at 9. SSCI then met in closed session on April 3, 2014,
to determine the proper disposition of those revised documents. Id.; see also 160 Cong. Rec.
D359 (daily ed. Apr. 2, 2014) (SSCI’s April 3, 2014, meeting was for the purpose of holding
“closed hearings to examine certain intelligence matters”). The Committee ultimately decided to
approve the revised versions and to send the Executive Summary to the President to seek
declassification and eventual public release. Id. SSCI, Executive Summary, at 9; Higgins Decl.

-6-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 9 of 28

¶ 17. Although the exact text of the motion approved by the Committee is not publicly available,
it is clear from the public statements of SSCI members that the Committee did not approve
seeking declassification, and subsequent release, of the Full Report. See, e.g., Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, Press Release, Intelligence Committee Votes to Declassify Portions of CIA Study
(Apr. 3, 2014) (“The full 6,200-page full report has been updated and will be held for
declassification at a later time.”); Higgins Decl. ¶ 18; Higgins Decl. Exh. F.
D.

SSCI’s December 2014 Public Release of the Executive Summary.

SSCI and the Executive Branch had many discussions after April 2014 regarding the
Executive Summary, and SSCI continued to edit the document in light of those discussions.
Higgins Decl. ¶ 19. SSCI also apparently made conforming changes to the Full Report as it
updated the Executive Summary. Id. When SSCI and the Executive Branch concluded their
discussions, the Director of National Intelligence declassified a partially redacted version of the
Executive Summary. SSCI then publicly released the redacted Executive Summary, along with
minority views and the additional views of various Committee members, redacted in the same
manner, on December 9, 2014. Higgins Decl. ¶ 20. At that time, the SSCI did not choose to
seek declassification of or publicly release the Full Report. SSCI Committee Study of the CIA’s
Detention and Interrogation Program: Chairman’s Foreword, at 3 (Dec. 3, 2014) (“I chose not to
seek declassification of the full Committee Study at this time.”)
III.

ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM SSCI CHAIRMEN.
The events described above constitute SSCI’s formal course of action with respect to the

disposition of the Executive Summary and Full Report. The former Chairman and the current
Chairman have also expressed additional views in letters to the President. In addition, the former

-7-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 10 of 28

Chairman has transmitted at least two updated versions of the Full Report to the President—one
in the summer of 2014 and another in December 2014. Higgins Decl. ¶ 21. The CIA received
both updated versions of the Full Report; the other defendant agencies in this case received only
the December 2014 version. Frifield Decl ¶ 7; Herrington Decl. ¶ 5; Kadzik Decl. ¶ 5.
In letters to the President dated April 7, 2014, and December 10, 2014, SSCI Chairman
Dianne Feinstein expressed her desire for the Full Report to be made available to appropriate
Executive Branch agencies. Her April 7 letter enclosed the Findings and Conclusions of the
Executive Summary, which SSCI had voted to send for declassification, and stated that she
would transmit separately copies of the Full Report, for which she “encourage[d] and approve[d]
the dissemination . . . to all relevant Executive Branch agencies, especially those who were
provided with access to the previous version.” She added: “This is the most comprehensive
accounting of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program, and I believe it should be viewed
within the U.S. Government as the authoritative report on the CIA’s actions.” Exhibit 2 (April 7,
2014 letter from SSCI Chairman Dianne Feinstein to The Honorable Barack Obama).
In December 2014, SSCI Chairman Dianne Feinstein transmitted an updated, presumably
final, version of the Full Report to the defendant agencies. Her December 10, 2014, cover letter
to the President expressed a desire for the Full Report to be “made available within the CIA and
other components of the Executive Branch for use as broadly as appropriate to help make sure
that this experience is never repeated.” The letter continued: “To help achieve that result, I hope
you will encourage use of the full report in the future development of CIA training programs, as
well as future guidelines and procedures for all Executive Branch employees, as you see fit.”

-8-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 11 of 28

Exhibit 3 (December 10, 2014 letter from SSCI Chairman Dianne Feinstein to The Honorable
Barack Obama).
The Committee chairmanship passed from one party to the other when the current
Congress opened on January 3, 2015. The new Chairman, Senator Richard Burr, recently sent a
letter to the President indicating that he was not aware of the former Chairman’s December 2014
letter transmitting the Full Report to the President before or at the time it was sent. He advised
the President that he considers the Full Report to be “a highly classified and committee sensitive
document” and was therefore requesting that “all copies of the full and final report in the
possession of the Executive Branch be returned immediately to the Committee.” The Chairman
added: “If an Executive Branch agency would like to review the full and final report, please have
them contact the Committee and we will attempt to arrive at a satisfactory accommodation for
such a request.” Exhibit 4 (January 14, 2015 letter from SSCI Chairman Richard Burr to The
Honorable Barack Obama).
On January 16, 2015, now-SSCI Vice Chairman Feinstein responded to Chairman Burr’s
January 14, 2015, letter. In that letter, the Vice Chairman stated that she “did not support” the
request that the Executive Branch return all copies of the Full Report to the Committee. She
further reiterated the request from her December 10, 2014, letter, “and ask[ed] that you retain the
full 6,963-page classified report within appropriate Executive branch systems of record, with
access to appropriately cleared individuals with a need to know.” Exhibit 5 (January 16, 2015
letter from SSCI Vice Chairman Dianne Feinstein to The Honorable Barack Obama).

-9-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 12 of 28

ARGUMENT
I.

THE SSCI REPORT IS A CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, NOT SUBJECT TO
FOIA.
A.

Whether the Document is an “Agency Record” Presents a Jurisdictional
Question.

Under FOIA, an agency need only disclose “agency records.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
A court has jurisdiction to “enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the
production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.” 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(B). The question of whether a document is an “agency record” is, therefore,
jurisdictional. See Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136-38,
150 (1980) (federal jurisdiction in a FOIA case is dependent upon a showing that an agency has
(1) “improperly,” (2) “withheld,” (3) “agency records”). The SSCI Report at issue in this case is
not an “agency record,” but a congressional document. Because FOIA does not cover
congressional documents or records, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’
FOIA claims relating to the SSCI Report, and they should be dismissed. See Bureau of Nat.
Affairs, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 742 F.2d 1484, 1488 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“The requirement
that materials sought by a private party be “agency records” is jurisdictional—only when an
agency withholds an agency record does the district court have authority to compel disclosure.”).
Because subject matter jurisdiction focuses on a court’s power to hear the plaintiffs’
claim, a Rule 12(b)(1) motion imposes on the court an affirmative obligation to ensure that it is
acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority. Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of
Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2001). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a
Court need not limit itself to the allegations of the Complaint. See Hohri v. United States, 782

-10-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 13 of 28

F.2d 227, 241 (D.C. Cir. 1986), vacated on other grounds, 482 U.S. 64 (1987). Rather, it may
“consider such materials outside the pleadings as it deems appropriate to resolve the question
whether it has jurisdiction in the case.” Scolaro v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 104 F. Supp.
2d 18, 22 (D.D.C. 2000) (citing Herbert v. Nat’l Acad. of Sciences, 974 F.2d 192, 197
(D.C.Cir.1992)).4
B.

An Analysis of the Relevant Factors Demonstrates that Congress Retains
Control of the SSCI Report.

In U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 144 (1989), the Supreme Court
concluded that two requirements must be met in order for materials to qualify as “agency
records.” First, the agency must have either created or obtained the requested materials. Id.
Second, “the agency must be in control of the requested materials at the time the FOIA request is
made.” Id. at 145. While none of the defendant agencies created the SSCI Report, they do not

4

Courts in this Circuit have considered motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
to be brought under Rule 12(b)(1) even after the filing of a responsive pleading. See, e.g., U.S. v.
Philip Morris USA, Inc., 787 F.Supp.2d 68, 73 (D.D.C. 2011) (treating challenge to court’s
subject matter jurisdiction in “Suggestion of Mootness and Motion for Partial Vacatur” of award
of injunctive relief brought under Rule 12(h)(3) as challenge to subject matter jurisdiction under
Rule 12(b)(1), stating that challenge to subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) “may be
raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial
and the entry of judgment.”) (citing Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006)). To the
extent the Court may determine that this motion should have been brought either under Rule
12(h)(3) or 12(c), rather than Rule 12(b)(1) because defendant has already filed an answer to
plaintiff’s complaint, Rule 12(b)(1) continues to provide the proper standard of review. See id.
(“When faced with what a party characterizes as a Rule 12(h)(3) motion, a court should treat the
motion as a traditional Rule 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (quoting
Harbury v. Hayden, 444 F.Supp.2d 19, 26 (D.D.C.2006)). A Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction should also be decided under the 12(b)(1) standard. See
Newbrough v. Piedmont Reg’l Jail Auth., No. 3:10CV867–HEH, 2012 WL 169988, at *2 (E.D.
Va. 19 Jan. 19, 2012) (quoting 5A Wright & A. Miller, Fed. Practice and Procedure § 1367
(1990)) (“‘[I]f a party raises an issue of subject matter jurisdiction on his motion for judgment on
the pleadings, the court will treat the motion as if it had been brought under Rule l2(b)(1).’”).
-11-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 14 of 28

dispute that it was delivered to them in December 2014. Because the SSCI Report is not under
any of the agencies’ control, however, it is not an agency record.
The D.C. Circuit generally analyzes four factors to determine whether an agency
exercises sufficient control over requested documents to render them agency records:
(1) the intent of the document’s creator to retain or relinquish control over the records;
(2) the ability of the agency to use and dispose of the record as it sees fit; (3) the extent to
which agency personnel have read or relied upon the document; and (4) the degree to
which the document was integrated into the agency’s record system or files.
United We Stand America, Inc., 359 F.3d at 599 (citing Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human
Servs., 87 F.3d 508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (other citations omitted).
Because this case concerns documents obtained by the agencies from Congress, however,
the four-part test does not apply. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Service, 726 F.3d 208,
221 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“the standard, four-factor control test does not apply to documents that an
agency has . . . obtained from . . . a governmental entity not covered by FOIA: the United States
Congress.”). Rather, in such a case, “the first two factors of the standard test [are] effectively
dispositive.” Id. This is because “special policy considerations . . . counsel in favor of according
due deference to Congress’ affirmatively expressed intent to control its own documents.” Id.
(quoting Paisley v. CIA, 712 F.2d 686, 693 n. 30 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (vacated in part on other
grounds, 724 F.2d 201 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). These “special policy considerations” include: “(1)
Congress’ clear intent to exempt congressional documents from disclosure under FOIA; (2)
Congress’ clear prerogative to prevent disclosure of its own confidential materials; and (3) the
danger of inhibiting the legislative . . . branch[] from making [its] records available to the
executive branch.” Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 348 n. 48 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

-12-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 15 of 28

Four decisions of the D.C. Circuit illustrate application of these principles. In Goland, a
FOIA requester sought a copy of a congressional hearing transcript in the possession of the CIA.
Goland, 607 F.2d at 345. In holding that the transcript was not an agency record, the D.C.
Circuit considered that the Committee had met in executive session, the stenographer and typist
were sworn to secrecy, the transcript was marked “Secret,” and the CIA retained a copy of the
transcript for internal reference purposes only, for use in conjunction with legislation concerning
the CIA and its operations. Id. at 347.
In contrast, the D.C. Circuit has found that formerly congressional documents in the
hands of agencies could be converted to agency records, but “only because Congress had not
clearly expressed an intent to retain control over them.” Judicial Watch, 726 F.3d at 221 (citing
Paisley, 712 F.2d at 696). Thus, in Paisley, the plaintiff sought two transcripts of testimony
given before SSCI, and three letters from the SSCI chairman, two to a senator, and one to the
Attorney General. Paisley, 712 F.2d at 694 n. 32. Because there were no special conditions of
secrecy surrounding the congressional hearings for which transcripts of testimony were sought,
and because the documents were not subsequently sent to the defendant agencies in such a way
as to manifest intent by Congress to retain control, the Paisley court held that the documents at
issue were not, in fact, congressional records. Id. at 694-95. Similarly, in Holy Spirit Ass’n for
the Unification of World Christianity v. CIA, 636 F.2d 838, 840 (D.C. Cir. 1980), the court found
that, “even if once excluded from the FOIA as congressional records,” documents that were
generated by Congress and sent to the CIA had become agency records “because Congress failed
to express with sufficient clarity its intent to retain control over the documents.” The Holy Spirit
court did not, however, “direct Congress to act in a particular way in order to preserve its FOIA

-13-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 16 of 28

exemption for transferred documents,” and “[did] not adopt appellant’s position that Congress
must give contemporaneous instructions when forwarding congressional records to an agency.”
Id. Rather, what was required was “some clear assertion of congressional control.” Id. Because
“nothing here either in the circumstances of the documents’ creation or in the conditions under
which they were sent to the CIA indicate[d] Congress’ intent to retain control over the records or
to preserve their secrecy,” the court concluded that the documents were agency records. Id. at
842.
Finally, in United We Stand America, the D.C. Circuit found that a letter sent to the IRS
by a congressional committee was not an “agency record” because the document itself stated:
“This document is a Congressional record and is entrusted to the Internal Revenue Service for
your use only. This document may not be disclosed without the prior approval of the Joint
Committee.” United We Stand America, 359 F.3d at 600–01. The court ultimately found that the
agency’s response to the letter was an agency record, although portions were redacted so as not
to disclose the nature of Congress’ request, in an effort to protect the contents of that
congressional record. Id. at 602–03.
In Holy Spirit and United We Stand America, the courts echoed the Paisley court’s
analysis. In Paisley, the court had stated that, “[w]hether a congressionally generated document
has become an agency record . . . depends on whether under all the facts of the case the
document has passed from the control of Congress and become property subject to the free
disposition of the agency with which the document resides.” Paisley, 712 F.2d at 692. To that
end, the Paisley court held: “Two factors are considered dispositive of Congress’ continuing
intent to control a document: (1) the circumstances attending the document’s creation, and (2)

-14-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 17 of 28

the conditions under which it was transferred to the agency.” Id. Indeed, these factors are the
flip side of the second factor in the test set forth in United We Stand America: “if ‘Congress has
manifested its own intent to retain control, then the agency – by definition – cannot lawfully
‘control’ the documents.” United We Stand America, 359 F.3d at 600 (quoting Paisley, 712 F.2d
at 693).
In this case, which concerns a document created by Congress and delivered to certain
Executive Branch agencies, both the circumstances attending the creation of the SSCI Report and
the conditions under which it was transferred to the agencies support the conclusion that the Full
Report remains under congressional control. These conditions also limit the ability of the
agencies to use and dispose of the Full Report as they see fit. Accordingly, the first two factors
of the four-factor test for agency control squarely support the conclusion that the Full Report
remains a congressional record. Although the final two factors of the four-factor test (the extent
to which agency personnel have read or relied upon the document, and the degree to which the
document was integrated into the agency’s record system or files) are not relevant to
congressionally-generated documents, those factors also support a finding that the Full Report is
not an agency record.
1.

SSCI Intended to Retain Control Over the Full Report.
a.

The circumstances surrounding the creation of the Report show that
Congress intended to retain control.

The circumstances surrounding the creation of the SSCI Report show that Congress
intended to retain control over the Full Report. Judicial Watch, 726 F.3d at 221; Paisley, 712
F.2d at 692. Even before the drafting of the Full Report began, SSCI expressly stated that it
intended for its records, including “any . . . draft and final recommendations, reports or other

-15-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 18 of 28

materials generated by Committee staff or Members,” to remain congressional records not
subject to FOIA. Higgins Decl. ¶ 12, Exh. D to Decl. The CIA was directed not to integrate the
records from the segregated drive into its records filing system, or to disseminate, copy, or use
them for any purpose without prior authorization from the Committee. Id. And SSCI requested
that in response to a FOIA request seeking these records, the CIA should respond based on an
understanding that the documents are congressional, not CIA, records. Id. These admonitions
are analogous to the Joint Committee on Taxation’s confidentiality request in United We Stand
America, which the D.C. Circuit found to be a sufficient indication of congressional intent to
retain control over a letter requesting documents from the IRS. See 359 F.3d at 600-01, 605
(letter stated: “This document is a Congressional record and is entrusted to the Internal Revenue
Service for your use only. This document may not be disclosed without the prior approval of the
Joint Committee.”). Further, this direction regarding the handling of the these records came
from both the Chairman and Vice Chairman of SSCI, reflecting an indisputable consensus with
respect to how the committee viewed not only drafts of the report, but also the final Full Report.
Additional facts similarly support the conclusion that Congress intended to maintain
control over the Full Report. SSCI’s discussions and votes regarding the Full Report were all in
closed session. See, e.g., 160 Cong. Rec. D359 (daily ed. Apr. 2, 2014); 158 Cong. Rec. D1029
(daily ed. Dec. 12, 2012). All versions of the Full Report are marked TOP SECRET, with
additional access restrictions noted based on the sensitive compartmented information contained
in it. Higgins Decl. ¶ 22. As such, the Full Report could not have been widely disseminated.
Indeed, the very subject-matter of the Full Report – intelligence operations, foreign relations, and
other classified matters – suggests that it could not be broadly disseminated. Id. Thus, the Full

-16-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 19 of 28

Report “was quite obviously meant to be secret,” Holy Spirit v. CIA, 636 F.2d 838, 841 (D.C.
Cir. 1981), and the circumstances surrounding the Report’s creation closely mirror those of the
transcript in Goland that was found not to be an agency record. See Goland,607 F.2d at 347
(congressional committee met in executive session to conduct the hearing; stenographer and
typist were sworn to secrecy; and the transcript was marked ‘Secret;’ additionally, record was
known to contain “discussions of basic elements of intelligence methodology, both of this
country and of friendly foreign governments, as well as detailed discussions of the CIA’s
structure and disposition of functions.”).
Indeed, the applicable Senate rules also confirm that the Full Report is confidential, as the
default rule for SSCI information is that it may not be publicly disclosed. See, e.g., S. Res. 94400, § 8(a) (“No member of the Select Committee shall disclose any information, the disclosure
of which requires a committee vote, prior to a vote by the committee on the question of the
disclosure of such information or after such vote except in accordance with this section.”)
available at http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs113th/sprt1137.pdf; SSCI Rule 9.7 (“No
member of the Committee or of the Committee staff shall disclose, in whole or in part or by way
of summary, the contents of any classified or committee sensitive papers, materials, briefings,
testimony, or other information in the possession of the Committee to any other person, except as
specified in this rule. . . . Public disclosure of classified information in the possession of the
Committee may only be authorized in accordance with Section 8 of S. Res. 400 of the 94th
Congress.”) available at http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs113th/sprt1137.pdf; Senate Rule
29.5 (providing that disclosure of “secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate”

-17-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 20 of 28

can lead to expulsion from the Senate (for a Senator), or dismissal from the service of the Senate,
and punishment for contempt (for an officer or employee of the Senate)).
Perhaps most importantly, SSCI has voted to seek declassification review only of the
Executive Summary, and to publicly release only the Executive Summary, rather than the Full
Report, further evidencing the control that SSCI still retains over the Full Report. On April 3,
2014, when SSCI met to determine the proper disposition of the Executive Summary and Full
Report, the Committee voted to approve the updated versions of both, but only to send the
Executive Summary to the President to seek declassification for eventual public release. The
Committee did not vote to seek declassification or for release of the Full Report. See supra at
II.C. As in previous cases, Congress’s disparate treatment of these two similar documents
strongly indicates that the Committee did not intend to broadly disseminate the Full Report either
inside or outside the Government. See, e.g., Paisley, 712 F.2d at 694 (noting the lack of external
indicia of control over documents, where “SSCI knew quite well how to classify its documents
as secret,” was evidence of lack of congressional intent to maintain control); Holy Spirit, 636
F.2d at 842 (contrasting transfer of records from Congress with specific instructions, with
documents that were forwarded without any such instructions). And the fact that the Committee
still has not voted to submit the Full Report for declassification review indicates that the
Committee as a whole continues not to intend to relinquish control over the Full Report.
b.

The conditions of transfer indicate Congress’s intent to control.

The instructions from SSCI at the time that the Full Report was delivered to the
defendant agencies also provide strong evidence of the Committee’s intent to retain full control
over the distribution, dissemination, and ultimate disposition of the Report.

-18-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 21 of 28

When SSCI first provided the approved draft Report to the agencies on December 14,
2012, it was for the specific and limited purpose of soliciting edits and comments for SSCI to
consider in making changes to the Report before finalizing it. That SSCI intended to review the
comments provided and use them to perhaps amend the Report makes it clear that, while SSCI
wanted the Executive Branch’s input, it did not intend to relinquish control over drafts of the
Report or the final work product that would emerge after review and comment by the agencies.
SSCI also asserted control over who was allowed to review the Report within the
agencies. The SSCI Staff Director detailed the explicit instructions of the Chairman that, as
specified in a motion adopted by the Committee, SSCI would only provide copies of its Report
to specific individuals identified in advance. See Higgins Decl. ¶ 15, Exh. E to Decl. (Email
from Staff Director Grannis to CIA (Dec. 13, 2012) (stating, “by explicit instruction of the
Chairman, and as specified in the motion, we will only provide copies of the report to specific
individuals who are identified in advance to the Chairman (through me)”). These measures
indicate a continued congressional intent to maintain control over the Full Report.
The December 10, 2014 letter sent to the President by Senator Feinstein is not evidence
of a contrary intent. In December 2014, then-SSCI Chairman Feinstein transmitted to the
President an updated version of the Full Report – this one presumably final. Her cover letter
expressed a desire for the Full Report to be “made available within the CIA and other
components of the Executive Branch for use as broadly as appropriate to help make sure that this
experience is never repeated.” Exh. 3. The letter continued: “To help achieve that result, I hope
you will encourage use of the full report in the future development of CIA training programs, as
well as future guidelines and procedures for all Executive Branch employees, as you see fit.” Id.

-19-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 22 of 28

Although the then-Chairman encouraged the President to disseminate the Full Report to
appropriate individuals within the Executive Branch, the letter does not indicate an intent to
more broadly disseminate the Full Report, or to send the Full Report to the Executive Branch for
a formal declassification review. Her letter could not have been intended to accomplish either of
those things, because the SSCI had expressly declined to send the Full Report for a
declassification review and declined to make the Full Report public. Senator Feinstein’s actions
should be interpreted consistent with SSCI’s earlier decision. The Senator’s letter is
appropriately viewed as expressing continued congressional control by suggesting limited uses
for the Full Report. Specifically, Senator Feinstein indicated that the Full Report should be used
only within the Executive Branch “to help make sure that this experience is never repeated.”5
This reservation of control, in conjunction with the SSCI’s determination not to declassify and
release the Full Report, reinforces congressional intent not to relinquish control over the
document. The letter encourages dissemination of the Full Report to individuals within the
Executive Branch; it does not authorize the President to publicly release the Full Report or use
and dispose of the Full Report in whatever way he sees fit. See Judicial Watch, 726 F.3d at 223.
At most, the defendant agencies have obtained copies of the Full Report “solely for internal
reference purposes,” just like the transcript in Goland. 607 F.2d at 347; see also Tax Analysts v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 845 F.2d at 1069 & n.20 (noting that “public reference documents that may
be found in agency libraries or offices, such as treatises, dictionaries and weekly news
magazines,” often will not be considered agency records), aff’d, 492 U.S. 136 (1989).

5

This view is further reinforced by the highly classified nature of Full Report. Due to its
classification, the Full Report cannot be widely circulated or even viewed by most Executive
Branch employees.
-20-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 23 of 28

Moreover, only the committee can seek to declassify the Full Report. See, e.g., S. Res.
94-400, § 8(a) (“The Select Committee may, subject to the provisions of this section, disclose
publicly any information in the possession of such committee after a determination by such
committee that the public interest would be served by such disclosure.”) (emphasis added)
available at http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs113th/sprt1137.pdf; SSCI Rule 4.1 (“No
measures or recommendations shall be reported, favorably or unfavorably, from the Committee
unless a majority of the Committee is actually present and a majority concur.”) available at
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs113th/sprt1137.pdf. There is no dispute between the
current and former Chairs that the committee has not sought declassification of the Full Report in
this case.
The recent letters from the new SSCI Chairman and the former SSCI Chairman (now
Vice Chairman) highlight the lack of any institutional intent to relinquish control of the Full
Report. While former Chairman Feinstein’s December 10, 2014, letter “encourage[s]” the
dissemination of the Full Report within the Executive Branch, it does not approve public
dissemination of the report. Likewise, the current SSCI Chairman has unambiguously expressed
an intention to retain congressional control over the final report, and has indicated that he
considers the report to be a ‘committee sensitive” document. See Exh. 4 (“I consider [the Full]
report to be a highly classified and committee sensitive document. It should not be entered into
any Executive Branch system of records. For that reason, I request that all copies of the full and
final report in the possession of the Executive Branch be returned immediately to the
Committee.”). Although both Senators agree that the Full Report is not to be made public, their
conflicting views on a politically sensitive issue underscore the importance of looking to the

-21-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 24 of 28

Committee’s official actions as evidence of congressional intent. And the Committee’s official
actions, as forcefully articulated in its 2009 correspondence, make it clear that it has not
relinquished control over the Full Report. Exh. D to Higgins Decl.
2.

The defendant agencies cannot use or dispose of the record as they see fit.

Because under the facts of this case, SSCI amply manifested its intent to retain control
over the Full Report, it necessarily follows that the agencies cannot use or dispose of the Full
Report as they see fit. As the D.C. Circuit has explained, “[i]f, under the Goland standard,
Congress has manifested its own intent to retain control, then the agency – by definition – cannot
lawfully ‘control’ the documents.” United We Stand, 359 F.3d at 600, 603. Here, the first two
factors in the standard four-factor test – Congress’s intent to control and the agency’s ability to
control – thus “fit together” in this case and confirm the decisive point: the agencies do not have
“exclusive control of the disputed documents.” Id. at 600.
3.

The final two factors also favor a finding that the Full Report is not an
agency record.

Although the D.C. Circuit instructs against applying the final two factors of the standard
test in a case involving a congressionally-created document, these final two factors – the extent
to which agency personnel have read or relied upon the document, and the degree to which the
document was integrated into the agency’s record system or files – also weigh in favor of a
finding that the SSCI Report is not an agency document. As set forth in the Higgins, Frifield,
Herrington and Kadzik declarations, none of the defendant agencies have freely used the Full
Report; they have kept it stored in a SCIF, with limited access. Neither DOJ nor DOS,
moreover, has even opened the package with the disc containing the full Report. And CIA and
DoD have carefully limited access to and made only very limited use of the Report. Each agency

-22-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 25 of 28

has ensured that the envelope containing the disc is marked with the appropriate classification
markings, stored in a secure location consistent with the disc’s classification, and labeled as a
“congressional record.” Higgins Decl. ¶¶ 22-24; Frifield Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; Herrington Decl. ¶¶ 6-7;
Kadzik Decl., ¶¶ 6-9.
Moreover, the current SSCI Chairman has stated that, not only are the agencies not to use
the full Report without the specific permission of the Committee, but they should return the discs
that were delivered on December 20, 2014. Exh. 4. Indeed, because the Full Report remains
highly classified and compartmented, it cannot be widely disseminated or used within the
Executive Branch. The limited use of the Full Report by individuals within the agencies weighs
against a finding that the Full Report is an agency record. See, e.g., Judicial Watch, Inc. v.
United States Secret Service, 726 F.3d 208, 218-19 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (concluding that Secret
Service did not have ability to use records “as it sees fit” when the Service could use records for
only two limited purposes: “to perform background checks to determine whether and under what
conditions to authorize a visitor’s temporary admittance to the White House Complex,” and “to
verify the visitor’s admissibility at the time of the visit”).
Thus, the circumstances under which SSCI prepared the Full Report and provided it to
the defendant agencies demonstrate a clear intent to retain control over access to, and
dissemination of, the SSCI Report, precluding the agencies’ ability to use the document as they
see fit. In consideration of this congressional intent, the defendant agencies have restricted their
employees’ use of and access to the Full Report, and the document has not been widely
disseminated or relied upon in the course of agency business.

-23-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 26 of 28

C.

Policy Considerations Unique to the Congressional Context Require a
Determination that the SSCI Report is not an “Agency Record.”

In United We Stand America, Inc., the D.C. Circuit recognized “policy considerations
unique to the congressional context” that inform where to draw the line between congressional
documents and agency records. United We Stand, 359 F.3d at 599. As noted above, these
special “policy considerations” include: “(1) Congress’ clear intent to exempt congressional
documents from disclosure under FOIA; (2) Congress’ clear prerogative to prevent disclosure of
its own confidential materials; and (3) the danger of inhibiting the legislative . . . branch[] from
making [its] records available to the executive branch.” Goland, 607 F.2d at 348 n. 48. Along
the same lines, in Judicial Watch, 726 F.3d at 224, the D.C. Circuit concluded that constitutional
separation of powers concerns provided an important reason to find that the logs of visitors to the
Office of the President were not “agency records” within the meaning of FOIA. In finding that
the visitor logs were not “agency records,” the Judicial Watch court – in language equally
applicable here – cautioned against allowing a plaintiff to use FOIA to require the disclosure of
documents otherwise not subject to FOIA: “And where Congress has intentionally excluded a
governmental entity from the Act, we have been unwilling to conclude that documents or
information of that entity can be obtained indirectly, by filing a FOIA request with an entity that
is covered under that statute.” Id. at 225 (emphasis in original).
In this case, plaintiffs are seeking to use FOIA to circumvent the political process by
which SSCI made the determination to seek to declassify and publicly release the SSCI Report’s
Executive Summary, but not the Full Report. To effect that circumvention, plaintiffs invite this
Court to ignore the limits of its subject-matter jurisdiction and wade into a Committee debate
that, based upon the letters most recently sent by the Committee Chairman and Vice Chairman,

-24-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 27 of 28

appears to be ongoing. The result of a finding that the Full Report is an “agency record” in this
case would be a declassification review and release of non-exempt portions of the Full Report, a
result entirely at odds with the SSCI’s decision not to send the report for a declassification
review, and contrary to the direction of the current SSCI Chairman. Such a result would allow
the plaintiffs indirectly to obtain a document that would otherwise not be subject to FOIA, as
well as to circumvent both the exemption of congressional documents from disclosure, and
Congress’s clear prerogative to prevent disclosure of its own confidential materials. Because
such a result is plainly unwarranted, the Court should conclude that the Full Report is not an
agency record and dismiss this count of plaintiffs’ complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should dismiss plaintiffs’ FOIA claim for release of
the Full Report.
Dated: January 21, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
JOYCE R. BRANDA
Acting Assistant Attorney General
RONALD C. MACHEN, Jr.
United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO
Deputy Branch Director
Civil Division
/s/ Vesper Mei
VESPER MEI (D.C. Bar 455778)
Senior Counsel
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
-25-

 Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 39 Filed 01/21/15 Page 28 of 28

Telephone: (202) 514-4686
Fax: (202) 616-8470
E-mail: vesper.mei@usdoj.gov
Counsel for the Defendant

-26-