A federal court has ruled on a lawsuit filed by Thomas Carey, Jr., challenging the responses of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The ruling, issued by Judge Jia M. Cobb of the District Court for the District of Columbia, has significant implications for Carey and his access to information regarding his case. The court’s decision highlights the complexities of FOIA requests and the responsibilities of federal agencies in responding to them.
Carey, who is currently serving a 25-year sentence in federal prison, filed this lawsuit on July 16, 2026, under Civil Action No. 2022-1527. He submitted two identical FOIA requests in early 2021, one to the DOJ and the other to the DHS, seeking access to records related to himself and his deceased uncle. This case raises important questions about the handling of FOIA requests by government agencies and the rights of inmates to access information.
The dispute began when Carey made his FOIA requests, which included four categories of records. The DOJ acknowledged receipt of his request on February 3, 2021, but informed Carey that he needed to provide written authorization from his uncle or a death certificate to release any information related to him. However, Carey had already included his uncle's obituary with his request. The DOJ's failure to recognize this led to a lack of further action on their part.
On the other hand, the DHS attempted to fulfill Carey's request by releasing 334 pages of responsive documents. However, they initially faced challenges due to Carey's status as a federal inmate. Eventually, the DHS managed to send the documents to a contact at the Federal Bureau of Prisons for printing. Out of the 334 pages, 111 were released in full, while 223 pages had certain information withheld under various FOIA exemptions.
Before the DHS could fully release the documents, Carey filed his lawsuit, claiming that both agencies failed to comply with FOIA's timelines and wrongfully withheld records. He sought a court order to compel them to conduct a search and produce the non-exempt records he requested.
In its ruling, the court addressed the government's motion for summary judgment, which was partially granted and partially denied. The court found that Carey no longer contested the DHS's response and viewed it as a model for compliance. As a result, the court granted summary judgment to the DHS, effectively dismissing Carey's claims against that agency.
However, the court ruled against the DOJ's defense that Carey had not exhausted his administrative remedies before filing the lawsuit. The court noted that FOIA requires agencies to respond to requests within specific timelines, and if they fail to do so, they cannot use the exhaustion defense to block a lawsuit. The court stated, "The February 3 acknowledgment letter does not satisfy these requirements and therefore does not qualify as an agency determination." This ruling emphasizes the importance of timely and adequate responses by federal agencies to FOIA requests.
The court's decision means that Carey can continue his legal battle against the DOJ for the records he seeks. It underscores the responsibility of federal agencies to adhere to FOIA timelines and adequately communicate with requesters. The ruling may also set a precedent for future FOIA cases involving similar issues of agency response and compliance.
Looking ahead, Carey must submit a status report by August 7, 2026, indicating whether he wishes to proceed with his lawsuit against the DOJ. This ruling opens the door for Carey to potentially obtain the information he seeks, which could be crucial for his case. The outcome of this case may influence how federal agencies handle FOIA requests in the future, particularly regarding the rights of inmates and the obligations of agencies to provide timely responses.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals or related cases pending.