- The Washington Times - Monday, August 18, 2014

The administration that vowed to be the most transparent in history now must defend itself against a federal lawsuit accusing it of thwarting the release of public information. It’s a case that could reveal just how much politics influences the processing of Freedom of Information Act requests, especially when such releases could embarrass the president.

The civic watchdog group Cause of Action on Monday sued the Obama administration, claiming that presidential attorneys have interfered improperly in the release of public documents under the landmark FOIA law in an effort to curb the release of derogatory information about the White House.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the nonpartisan Cause of Action, names 12 federal agencies that the group says slowed the release of documents so officials could consult with White House attorneys under a review process established in spring 2009. FOIA analysts say this practice never occurred in prior administrations.

PHOTOS: See Obama's biggest White House fails

The process gave White House officials review authority over documents that mentioned the White House or presidential aides, and was based on an April 15, 2009, memo by White House Counsel Gregory Craig that instructed all federal agencies to consult with President Obama’s attorneys on the release of documents containing “White House equities.”

The lawsuit contends the term “White House equities” was never mentioned in the FOIA law and has been used to delay the legitimate release of public information.

“The White House is demanding access to records and otherwise influencing agencies’ FOIA obligations to produce responsive documents in a manner that is not countenanced by the law,” Cause of Action argued in its lawsuit. “Indeed, the ‘most transparent administration in history’ has injected itself into a process (FOIA) presumably to self-regulate what agency records are produced to the public.”

PHOTOS: Separated at birth: Pols and their celebrity look-alikes

The lawsuit references a June 30 article in The Washington Times that reported on the impact of the “White House equities” memo and quoted FOIA officers at federal agencies who said the review process had been used to prevent the release of information embarrassing to the Obama administration.

Cause of Action Executive Director Daniel Epstein said in an interview that the organization sued federal agencies that refused to disclose communications related to documents that the agencies had shared with the White House. Although the initial complaint was filed under FOIA, he said, other claims could be added.

“We are simply suing because we want the documents in these agencies that they have failed to produce,” he said. “There is currently only one count in that there is a violation of FOIA, but that is not to say that we may not later amend the complaint if we think other issues arise.

“We are statutorily entitled to documents that have not been produced,” he added.

The White House, in a statement Sunday to The Washington Post, defended its record on openness, citing what it said was a huge number of FOIA requests processed since Mr. Obama took office.

The president is “committed to a transparent and open government and has taken unprecedented steps to ensure that members of the public have access to information,” the statement said, noting that administration agencies and departments processed almost 680,000 FOIA requests last year, the third consecutive year of processing increases. The White House also has argued, despite its critics, that it is simply following precedent set by previous administrations on FOIA requests in which “White House equities” are involved.

Congressional interest?

Anne Weismann, chief counsel of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan watchdog group that has sued the Obama administration over White House visitor logs, said the Cause of Action lawsuit is a “bread-and-butter FOIA case” but could force Congress to take greater notice.

“In this case, the lawsuit is trying to compel documents that could explain how the ‘White House equities’ policy is being implemented,” she said. “If it turns out that the policy is being used to intentionally slow the process, … it could lead to congressional oversight.”

Story Continues →