First Amendment Coalition v. USDOJ, No. 15-15117 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the Coalition's request for attorney's fees under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Coalition sought information regarding Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who had been targeted by the CIA as a terrorist and was killed in a drone attack. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to consider and apply the relevant factors that the panel articulated in Church of Scientology v. United States Postal Serv., 700 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1983), for determining whether the Coalition had substantially prevailed. The panel explained that the district court's view of causation was at odds with Church of Scientology's more enlightened view that, as here, multiple factors may be at play. Furthermore, the district court judgment was inconsistent with Congress' intent that the award of FOIA counsel fees has at its fundamental purpose the facilitation of citizen access to the courts, and should not be subject to a grudging application. The panel remanded for the district court to determine the fees to which the Coalition was entitled.
Court Description: Attorney’s Fees. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of the First Amendment Coalition’s request for attorney’s fees under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). The death in a drone attack in Yemen of Anwar al- Awlaki, an American citizen targeted by the Central Intelligence Agency as a terrorist, spawned parallel litigation under FOIA for the release of legal memoranda prepared by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel addressing the legality of the targeted killing of U.S. citizen terrorists. The First Amendment Coalition sued in the Northern District of California, while the American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times sued in the Southern District of New York. After the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in the government’s favor, the Second Circuit reversed and ordered the release of one responsive Office of Legal Counsel memorandum. Thereafter, the Department of Justice disclosed a second responsive memorandum in the Northern District of California litigation. The panel held that the First Amendment Coalition was eligible for attorney’s fees. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to consider and apply the relevant factors in Church of Scientology v. United States Postal Serv., 700 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1983), for FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION V. USDOJ 3 determining whether the First Amendment Coalition had substantially prevailed. The panel held that the district court’s limited view of causation was at odds with the Church of Scientology’s view that, as in this case, multiple factors may be at play. The panel also held that the district court’s decision was inconsistent with Congress’s intent that the award of FOIA counsel fees should not be grudgingly applied. Because there were no material facts in dispute, the panel remanded solely for the district court to determine the fees to which the First Amendment Coalition was entitled. Judge Berzon concurred in the judgment, but disagreed with the other panel members regarding the reach of FOIA’s fee provisions. Judge Berzon stated that there was no majority for the holding that causation has to be demonstrated as a necessary condition of eligibility for FOIA complainants. Judge Murguia concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. Judge Murguia joined in the analysis of part II of the panel opinion, finding that recovery under a catalyst theory continued to require causation. She did not join in the opinion’s analysis concerning whether the district court clearly erred in its factual finding on causation. Judge Murguia concurred in reversing the district court’s judgment on First Amendment Coalition’s eligibility for a fee award, and in remanding to consider First Amendment Coalition’s entitlement to fees. 4 FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION V. USDOJ
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 29, 2017.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.