Church of Scientology v. Department of Justice
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
612 F.2d 417 (1979)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
The Church of Scientology of California (CSC) (plaintiff) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) (defendant) for any documents in the DEA’s possession regarding CSC. The DEA denied CSC’s request, citing FOIA Exemption 7(D), which protected information gathered by law enforcement from confidential sources. After exhausting all available administrative remedies, CSC sued the DEA in federal district court. In hearings before the district court, the DEA argued that Exemption 7(D) applied because the records CSC requested had been compiled by the DEA as part of a criminal investigation using information provided by confidential sources. The DEA further argued that the term “confidential sources” should be defined to include state, local, and foreign law-enforcement agencies, not just human sources. It was undisputed that there was no statutory definition for the term “confidential sources.” The district court, citing both Exemption 7(D)’s inconclusive legislative history and its facially unambiguous plain meaning, agreed with the DEA and held that Exemption 7(D) blocked CSC’s FOIA request. CSC appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Barnes, J.)
Dissent (Wallace, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.