The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has dismissed an appeal from the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. This decision affects ICAN's efforts to obtain information about vaccine research from the FDA and highlights the challenges faced by organizations seeking transparency from government agencies.

The court's ruling, issued on November 3, 2026, comes after ICAN filed a lawsuit in 2025 when the FDA failed to respond to its FOIA request. The dismissal emphasizes the importance of jurisdiction in federal appeals and the limitations placed on what can be contested in court.

The case stems from ICAN's 2019 FOIA request, which sought access to a large number of emails related to the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review. After the FDA did not produce the requested records or indicate whether it would comply, ICAN pursued legal action to compel the agency to release the documents.

In response, the FDA requested additional time to process the request, citing “exceptional circumstances” and “due diligence.” The district court agreed, staying the proceedings for 18 months and requiring the parties to submit periodic status reports. ICAN then appealed this order, arguing that the court's decision was improper.

The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear ICAN's appeal. According to the court, federal courts of appeals can only review “final decisions of the district courts” as stated in 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court noted that the collateral order doctrine, which allows for immediate appeals in certain circumstances, did not apply in this case.

The judges emphasized that the district court's order did not conclusively determine the disputed question regarding the FDA's processing time for the FOIA request. The court stated, “Because those orders are subject to revision, they do not ‘conclusively determine the issue of court-imposed time constraints’ on the agency’s processing of a FOIA request.” This reasoning follows a precedent set in a previous case, Summers v. United States Department of Justice, where a similar situation was addressed.

In the Summers case, the D.C. Circuit found that orders temporarily staying FOIA proceedings are not subject to immediate appeal because they can be revised. The court reiterated this point in ICAN's case, stating, “As in Summers, the district court here found that the agency’s ‘exceptional circumstances’ and ‘due diligence’ warrant additional processing time.”

ICAN attempted to argue that its case was different from Summers because it challenged the court's decision on a broader level, claiming the court's decision was ultra vires, or beyond its legal power. However, the court clarified that finality must be determined for the entire category of claims, not on an individual basis. Thus, the court maintained that it could not hear ICAN's appeal.

The dismissal of ICAN's appeal underscores the complexities involved in navigating FOIA requests and the legal avenues available to challenge government agency decisions. Organizations seeking information from federal agencies may face significant hurdles, especially when those agencies request additional time to process requests.

Going forward, this ruling may impact how similar cases are handled in the future. Organizations like ICAN may need to reconsider their strategies when pursuing transparency from government agencies. The ruling does not set a new precedent but reinforces existing legal standards regarding jurisdiction and the appealability of certain orders.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether ICAN plans to pursue further legal action or if there are any related cases pending. The court's ruling is final unless ICAN files a timely petition for rehearing.