Fourth Circuit Rule: No Compelled CIA Operational-File Search Absent Completed Withholding and Sworn Evidence; Detailed CIA Affidavits Sustain FOIA (b)(1)/(b)(3) Redactions

1. Introduction

This FOIA dispute arose from requests by Michael Driggs and other plaintiffs for CIA records concerning American prisoners of war and U.S. government recovery efforts. A central document was a CIA/DoD “Joint Report” reviewing a 1998 National Intelligence Estimate and responding to then-Senator Robert Smith’s criticisms. The litigation narrowed to two issues: (1) whether the CIA’s search was inadequate because it did not include the Agency’s most sensitive “operational files,” and (2) whether CIA redactions to the Joint Report were lawful under FOIA exemptions.

The district court denied a motion (construed as a motion to compel) seeking an operational-file search, and it granted summary judgment to the CIA on both the search issue and the redactions. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in a published decision.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Fourth Circuit affirmed on both disputed issues.

• Operational files: The court held that a compelled operational-file search under 50 U.S.C. § 3141(f) requires a showing that the CIA has “improperly withheld” records. Because the CIA was still conducting its search and producing responsive materials, the plaintiffs could not satisfy that prerequisite. The court also found plaintiffs failed to supply the required sworn, admissible evidence supporting “improper placement” of records solely in operational files.
• Redactions: The court held that the CIA’s affidavit justified the redactions under both FOIA Exemption 1 (classified national defense/foreign policy information under Executive Order 13526) and Exemption 3 (statutory nondisclosure under the National Security Act and the CIA Act). The affidavit was sufficiently specific, and the court rejected arguments based on the passage of time and an individual official’s view favoring release.
• Bad faith: The court declined to adopt a broad rule on whether alleged bad faith in the underlying intelligence work can defeat affidavit credibility, but held that even under the more permissive approach, plaintiffs did not meet the “very high standard” to justify such scrutiny.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

• Accuracy in Media v. CIA, 134 F.4th 1236 (D.C. Cir. 2025): Cited for de novo review and for Congress’s purpose in the CIA Information Act—reducing burdensome, “fruitless” search/review of sensitive operational files. The Fourth Circuit relied on this framing to emphasize that compelled operational-file searches are exceptional, not routine.
• Jud. Watch, Inc. v. CIA, 310 F. Supp. 3d 34 (D.D.C. 2018): Used to distinguish two statutory theories under 50 U.S.C. § 3141(f): “improper placement” (records wrongly filed in operational files) versus “improper exemption of operational files” (files wrongly designated “operational”). This distinction drove the court’s rejection of plaintiffs’ reliance on another case.
• Hall v. CIA, No. 04-814, 2019 WL 13160061 (D.D.C. Aug. 2, 2019): Plaintiffs invoked Hall to argue Senator Smith’s affidavit could justify an operational-file search. The Fourth Circuit distinguished Hall as involving an “improper exemption of operational files” theory under § 3141(f)(4)(A), not plaintiffs’ “improper placement” theory under § 3141(f)(3). The precedent mattered less for its holding than as a contrast illustrating that the statutory subsection invoked dictates what evidence is relevant.
• Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 8.37 Acres of Land by Terry, 101 F.4th 350 (4th Cir. 2024): Cited for appellate waiver/forfeiture—arguments not raised below (here, decennial review and 25-year declassification points) generally cannot be raised on appeal.
• Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Rsch. v. Nat'l Insts. of Health, 122 F.4th 92 (4th Cir. 2024): Cited for de novo review of exemption rulings on summary judgment in FOIA cases.
• Zaid v. Dep't of Just., 96 F.4th 697 (4th Cir. 2024): Provided the court’s modern FOIA framing: FOIA’s default disclosure rule coexists with exemptions protecting public interests. Also cited for the principle that absent reason to question good faith, courts may accept affidavit credibility.
• Hanson v. U.S. Agency for Int'l Dev., 372 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 2004): The core standard the CIA had to meet—describe withheld material with “reasonable specificity” and explain how it fits an exemption.
• Simmons v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 796 F.2d 709 (4th Cir. 1986): Supported entry of summary judgment based on “relatively detailed” good-faith affidavits.
• Spannaus v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 813 F.2d 1285 (4th Cir. 1987): Reinforced that agencies need only “fairly describe” withheld content and state grounds; the court used this to reject demands for more granular detail that could compromise protected information.
• Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1990): Cited to reject the notion that courts must weigh the “passage of time” against FOIA exemptions absent statutory direction.
• CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (1985): Anchored the court’s deference to intelligence leadership’s discretion over sources and methods, rejecting the idea that one official’s informal view can override the agency’s institutional judgment.
• Rugiero v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 257 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2001): Plaintiffs’ main authority for considering bad faith in underlying agency conduct. The Fourth Circuit discussed Rugiero’s “very high standard” for triggering such review and applied that demanding threshold to reject plaintiffs’ bad-faith theory.
• Hayden v. Nat'l Sec. Agency/Cent. Sec. Serv., 608 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1979): Presented the opposite approach—past misconduct in other matters does not undermine affidavit sufficiency. The Fourth Circuit noted the circuit split but did not choose between them.
• Jones v. FBI, 41 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 1994): Cited through Rugiero as an example of the kind of “extreme case” (systemic civil-liberties infringements and embarrassment-avoidance motives) that might justify treating affidavits skeptically.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

A. Operational files under the CIA Information Act (50 U.S.C. § 3141)

The opinion treats the CIA Information Act as a threshold gatekeeper. Operational files can be exempted from FOIA’s usual search/review/disclosure obligations, and judicial compulsion to search them is limited to narrow statutory circumstances. The Fourth Circuit emphasized two limiting features:

• Timing and the “improperly withheld” prerequisite: The court read § 3141(f) to require that the Agency have “improperly withheld” requested records before a court may compel an operational-file search. Because the CIA’s productions were ongoing across many months, the court found plaintiffs could not yet prove withholding—much less improper withholding—of operational-file records.
• Subsection-specific evidentiary burden: Plaintiffs proceeded under an “improper placement” theory (§ 3141(f)(3)), which targets whether particular records were placed “solely in exempted operational files” when they should have been filed elsewhere. The statute demands a “sworn written submission” supported by personal knowledge or otherwise admissible evidence. The plaintiffs’ affidavits about generalized overclassification did not speak to misfiling/placement of these specific records and therefore did not satisfy the statutory trigger.

By distinguishing Hall v. CIA, the court clarified that evidence relevant to an “improper exemption of operational files” theory (e.g., whether documents “pose no national security risk”) does not necessarily establish “improper placement” (a filing/location defect). The opinion thus makes the choice of § 3141(f) theory outcome-determinative for both relevance and sufficiency of proof.

B. FOIA redactions under Exemptions 1 and 3

The court applied familiar Fourth Circuit FOIA doctrine: the government bears the burden, but can carry it via a detailed, good-faith affidavit. The CIA satisfied that burden twice over.

• Exemption 1 (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)): The CIA tied withheld portions to Executive Order 13526 §§ 1.4(c) and (d) (intelligence activities/sources/methods and foreign relations/activities). The affidavit identified functional categories—targets, locations, priorities, operational relationships, and internal processes—and articulated concrete harms (circumvention of collection, exposure of priorities and liaison relationships). The Fourth Circuit held this level of categorical description meets “reasonable specificity” without requiring self-defeating granularity.
• Exemption 3 (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)): The CIA invoked two nondisclosure statutes:
  • 50 U.S.C. § 3024(h)(1) (National Security Act): protection of intelligence sources and methods; the affidavit explained how the redactions conceal methods and prevent adversaries from learning CIA operational techniques.
  • 50 U.S.C. § 3507 (CIA Act): protection of CIA organization/functions and personnel identifiers; the affidavit asserted redactions protected exempted personnel information.
  The court stated that this Exemption 3 showing, by itself, sustained summary judgment.

The court also rejected three common requester arguments:

• “Conclusory affidavit” claim: Rebuffed via Spannaus v. U.S. Dep't of Just.—agencies must “fairly describe” and state grounds; requiring more risks revealing what exemptions protect.
• Passage of time: Rejected because FOIA exemptions are not time-limited by default; the court cited Fitzgibbon v. CIA to reject an obligation to reassess merely due to time elapsed.
• One official’s view favoring release: Rejected via CIA v. Sims; Congress vested institutional discretion in intelligence leadership, not in ad hoc individual opinions.

C. Bad faith based on underlying intelligence work

The Fourth Circuit acknowledged a split between Rugiero v. U.S. Dep't of Just. and Hayden v. Nat'l Sec. Agency/Cent. Sec. Serv. on whether past/underlying misconduct can undermine affidavit credibility. The court did not adopt a definitive rule, but held that even under Rugiero’s more requester-friendly approach, plaintiffs failed to meet the “very high standard” reserved for extreme cases (as illustrated by Jones v. FBI). Allegations that an intelligence estimate was inaccurate or speculative were characterized as a disagreement about rigor/merits, not evidence of bad faith sufficient to strip affidavits of the usual presumption of regularity.

3.3. Impact

• Stronger procedural gatekeeping for operational-file searches: The decision signals that requesters cannot force operational-file searches early in a case while productions are unfolding. Practically, litigants should expect courts to require completion (or at least a concrete record) before entertaining § 3141(f) compulsion.
• Sharper pleading/evidence discipline under § 3141(f): By stressing subsection-specific proof, the opinion encourages requesters to decide early whether they are asserting “improper placement” versus “improper exemption of operational files,” and to gather admissible evidence tailored to that theory (not merely evidence that the subject matter seems non-sensitive).
• Affidavit-based summary judgment remains robust in national security FOIA: The court reaffirmed that categorical descriptions of intelligence harms—when tied to Executive Order 13526 and Exemption 3 statutes—often suffice, limiting opportunities for in camera review absent a substantial showing (including credible bad faith).
• Bad-faith arguments face a high bar in the Fourth Circuit: Although the court left the doctrinal door ajar, it made clear that “bad faith” requires exceptional, well-documented misconduct, not critiques of analytic quality. This is likely to confine bad-faith discovery/in camera efforts to extraordinary records.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• FOIA: A federal law that generally requires agencies to disclose requested records, unless an exemption applies.
• Operational files (CIA Information Act): CIA files documenting foreign intelligence or counterintelligence operations (50 U.S.C. § 3141(b)). Congress allowed the CIA Director to exempt them from FOIA searching/reviewing because such efforts are often costly and risk revealing sensitive methods.
• “Improper placement” vs. “improper exemption” (50 U.S.C. § 3141(f)):
  • Improper placement: the records were filed in operational files when they should have been filed elsewhere.
  • Improper exemption: the files were wrongly designated as “operational” in the first place.
• FOIA Exemption 1: Permits withholding properly classified national defense/foreign policy information under an Executive Order (here, Executive Order 13526).
• FOIA Exemption 3: Permits withholding where a separate statute requires nondisclosure (here, intelligence sources/methods and CIA organizational/personnel protections).
• Agency affidavit: A sworn declaration explaining what was withheld and why an exemption applies. If it is detailed and appears in good faith, courts often rely on it to decide FOIA cases without reviewing every withheld line.
• In camera review: The judge privately inspects withheld material. Courts treat it as discretionary and often unnecessary when affidavits are adequate and there is no strong showing of bad faith.
• Summary judgment: A decision without trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact; in FOIA cases, it often turns on the adequacy and credibility of agency declarations.
• Collateral estoppel: A doctrine preventing relitigation of an issue already decided against a party; noted in the district court’s handling of certain plaintiffs but not appealed here.

5. Conclusion

Michael Driggs v. CIA reinforces a restrained judicial role in CIA FOIA disputes: courts will not compel searches of exempted operational files without a developed showing of “improper withholding” supported by sworn, admissible evidence tailored to the specific § 3141(f) theory, and they will uphold national-security redactions where the CIA provides relatively detailed, good-faith affidavits grounded in Executive Order 13526 and Exemption 3 statutes protecting intelligence sources, methods, and CIA personnel information. The opinion also constrains “bad faith” arguments by requiring exceptional proof, leaving routine challenges to the quality of intelligence analysis outside FOIA’s affidavit-credibility framework.