Texas Public Policy Foundation v. U.S. Department of State

In a split decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the U.S. Department of State was required to disclose previously redacted names and agency email addresses of career staff members who participated in the development of the national emissions reduction pledge that the Biden administration set in 2021 after rejoining the Paris Agreement. The Fifth Circuit concluded that this information could not be withheld under the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 6, which applies to information in “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The Fifth Circuit found that even if the names and email addresses constituted “similar files,” disclosure did not constitute “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The court said the State Department did not establish that its employees had a “significant interest” in keeping private their work on the emissions reduction target, distinguishing this case from others in which courts found a privacy interest in being protected from “proven danger, public association with a fatal and heavily criticized incident, and targeting by bad actors for highly sensitive information.” The court also found that the Department had “not effectively contested” the plaintiff’s “position that disclosing email addresses would provide at least some marginal public benefit,” including by helping the plaintiff and others “craft more precise follow-up FOIA requests.” Judge Haynes dissented, writing that the employees at issue did not have “policy-making authority” but were “career civil service employees” who could be “subject to harm or harassment if their names and email addresses were provided.” Judge Haynes disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument that this was “not a controversial situation.” She described “climate policy, including the greenhouse-gas-reduction target,” as “a high-profile and controversial matter.” She also characterized the benefits of disclosure as de minimis.

On February 5, 2025, the day after oral argument, the Department of Justice informed the court that the State Department’s new leadership had determined that the names of two individuals previously withheld could be released but that their email addresses and names and email addresses of other employees would continue to be withheld.

–

The plaintiff argued that the Department failed to conduct a sufficient search of records concerning the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate and improperly redacted names and agency email addresses. The court found that the Department’s declaration sufficiently demonstrated that its search was reasonably calculated to yield responsive records, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to present evidence of a genuine issue regarding the adequacy of the search. The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that official business communications were located in the special envoy’s personal email account, deeming it speculative, and upheld the Department’s summary judgment on the issue. Additionally, the court affirmed the Department’s decision to withhold draft iterations of greenhouse gas emissions policies under FOIA Exemption 5, recognizing that early drafts may not reflect final policy decisions made by the White House. Lastly, the court determined that the redaction of names and email addresses of specific Department employees was justified under FOIA exemptions, citing both the employees’ privacy interests and the lack of substantive information in the redacted details that would further illuminate the Department’s role in formulating the NDCs.