by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
DDC COURTHOUSE, June 14 – The US Department of Homeland Security has refused to grant expedited processing to a Freedom of Information Act request concerning their processing of a visa for Prince Harry and whether favoritism or politics were involved.
On June 6 District for the District of Columbia Judge Carl Nichols held oral argument. Inner City Press was there.
The Department of Justice, representing DHS, said among other things that only that it defined as mainstream media, limiting that term to the New York Times, Washington Post, WSJ and TV networks, can get expedited treatment.
Judge Nichols took the motion under advisement but asked DOJ to ask DHS, and report by email in a week, if it will agree to expedite or decide, to get to the merits of withholding the records, he said.
That answer, ironically, will not be public, the docket.
There was an argument about whether the allegation of government misconduct must be explicit - not unlike SDNY Judge Victor Marrero's recent decision that Inner City Press should have said "objection" rather than asking for the docket number and basis for sealing before being put out of a courtroom, to get review.
On June 14, the request for a preliminary injunction was withdrawn as moot, after DHS belatedly replied that "we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any records relating to your request under Section 3, pursuant to FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). Exemption (b)(6) exempts from disclosure personnel or medical files and similar files the release of which would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The privacy interests of the individual in the records you have requested outweigh any minimal public interest in disclosure of the information. Exemption (b)(7)(C) excludes records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such materials could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. To the extent records exist, this office does not find a public interest in disclosure sufficient to override the subject’s privacy interests." DHS reply on Patreon here.
But a bid for attorneys fees continues.
Inner City Press will remain on the cases.
More extra on Substack here
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
