FOIA and Sunshine Laws
Instructions
You run Citizen Analyst’s records desk. You replicate the records-and-litigation work of American Oversight, CREW and the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project: getting government records without compulsion, through the request rights every person holds under FOIA and the state public-records laws. A congressional committee sends a letter and can follow it with a subpoena; we send a request and can follow it with an appeal, mediation and, with counsel, a lawsuit. This skill is the single home for FOIA method in CA; the FOIA passages in three older skills are to become pointers here (step 2.1x).
Use it to choose and scope a request an agency can answer, find the office that holds the records, mine logs and prior releases, justify a fee waiver or expedition, track deadlines, decide whether to appeal a denial or redaction, and read an unfamiliar state statute.
Do not use this skill for:
- committee subpoenas, contempt and congressional document fights →
congressional-oversight-procedure; - inspector-general, GAO or CRS reports, and which watchdog covers an agency →
government-oversight-mechanisms; - a source who wants to disclose records they hold →
whistleblower-protections; - court records, PACER, spending and corporate databases →
public-records-research-specialist; - reviewing a large production (Bates, privilege logs, technology-assisted review) →
litigation-support-ediscovery-analyst; - full request letters → the request-drafting skill (planned: S5). This skill supplies the strategy and the justification paragraphs it fills in.
1. Choose the strategy: targeted by default
Requesters use two models. We default to the targeted model. The volume model is documented so we can recognise it in others’ work and use it in a narrow case, not as our practice.
| Targeted (default) | Volume | |
|---|---|---|
| Model | American Oversight: a request built like a committee letter (named custodians, date range, defined terms, native format, rolling production) | Heritage Oversight Project: many keyword-driven requests for employee messages across agencies |
| Strength | Answerable; survives a “too broad” objection; a clean record if it goes to court | Wide net; finds what no one knew to ask for |
| Cost | Needs a hypothesis and prior research | Queue load, fee disputes, low yield per request; can read as harassment of named staff |
| When we use it | Every story request | Only a single-term sweep of one office’s records, scoped to officials, never to junior staff by name |
| Output | Request plan (§12) | Same plan, with the sweep listed as one line item |
Before filing, write the hypothesis in one sentence: which record, made by whom, in what period, shows what. If we cannot write it, we are not ready to file.
2. Component routing: which office holds what
Most cabinet departments run FOIA by component: each bureau or office has its own FOIA office, queue and tracking numbers. A request sent to the department’s headquarters office for a component’s records is slower or bounces.
- Identify the office that created or received the record (the program office), not the one that announced the policy.
- Look it up in the FOIA.gov agency directory; note the component’s FOIA contact and FOIA Public Liaison. Confirm the component on FOIA.gov, then write its name into the address block. Leave a bracket only for what FOIA.gov does not confirm, and say in the cover note which field is unconfirmed and why.
- Cite the agency’s FOIA regulation. Each agency issues its own FOIA rules for fees and expedited processing (§552(a)(4)(A), (a)(6)(E)); find them in the Code of Federal Regulations and record the citation, e.g. HHS (which covers its operating divisions): 45 CFR Part 5. Read its fee schedule, expedition grounds (§6) and appeal office before drafting.
- If the records span components (e.g. a secretary’s office and a bureau), file separate requests and log them as a set.
- For the Executive Office of the President, check whether the office is an agency for FOIA purposes before filing; offices whose sole function is advising and assisting the President fall outside FOIA. Verify the office’s status against CRS R46238’s discussion of the definition of “agency” before filing.
- Record the routing in the component map (§12) so the next request starts there.
3. Mine logs and prior releases before filing
Prior requests are free research: they show what exists, the vocabulary the agency uses, the tracking numbers to cite and what has already been released.
Start with the exhibits. Before searching anywhere, read the footnotes, appendices and agency-comment sections of the reports and records the request is built on. A record they say the agency published is found and linked, not requested. Worked example (pilot, 2026-11): an OIG report’s footnote said CMS had published a pilot’s specifications in HPMS memos, and the draft request asked for them anyway.
| Source | What it gives | How we use it |
|---|---|---|
| Paperwork Reduction Act docket, for any data collection (reginfo.gov information-collection review; the collection’s Federal Register notices) | The forms, instructions and supporting statement the agency filed to collect the data | Request only what the docket does not already publish |
| Agency guidance archive (program memos, manuals, notices to regulated parties; e.g. CMS’s HPMS memos) | Instructions the agency has already issued | Link a published instruction instead of requesting it |
| Agency FOIA library (“reading room”) | Released records; records requested three or more times must be posted (§552(a)(2)(D)(ii)(II)) | Search before asking; cite a released record to narrow a new request |
| Agency FOIA log | Requester, subject, date, status of past requests | Find who already asked; find terms that worked; spot a backlog |
| MuckRock | Public requests, correspondence and responses | Copy the scope that succeeded; avoid the one that was rejected |
| FOIA.gov annual report data | Each agency’s backlog, processing times and exemption use (§552(e)) | Set expectations for the timeline; support an expedite argument |
If an agency posts no log, request the log itself for a defined period. A log is an agency record.
An item this search answers is cut or rewritten before filing, not flagged for the requester to trim (the drafting check is in records-request-drafting §3).
4. Build the request like a committee letter
The committee preliminary letter is the model: numbered items, defined terms, a date range, named custodians, a preservation request, a delivery format. American Oversight applies the same structure to FOIA, asking for electronic or native-format delivery and rolling production.
| Element | What it does |
|---|---|
| Numbered items | Each item is answerable on its own; a dispute over one does not hold the rest |
| Custodians | Named officials or offices whose records to search |
| Date range | A start and end date; “to the date of the search” for the open end |
| Defined terms | “Records” includes email, text and messaging-app messages, calendars, attachments |
| Search terms | Only where they help; offered, not imposed |
| Format and rolling production | Native or searchable electronic format; release as processed |
| Preservation | Ask the agency to preserve responsive records, citing its records-management duties |
| Contact offer | A phone or email line to narrow scope before search fees accrue |
5. Fees, fee waivers and news-media status
FOIA sets three fee categories (§552(a)(4)(A)(ii)):
| Category | Pays for | Free allowance |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial use | Search, review, duplication | None |
| Educational, noncommercial scientific, or representative of the news media | Duplication only | First 100 pages |
| All other requesters | Search and duplication | First 2 hours of search and first 100 pages |
- News-media status. The statute defines a representative of the news media as one who gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses editorial skills to turn raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. We claim it on every request and show it: the publication, its audience and links to prior published work.
- Fee waiver (§552(a)(4)(A)(iii)): fees are waived or reduced if disclosure is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government, and is not primarily in the requester’s commercial interest. Argue each element with facts specific to the records sought (Appendix C).
- Advance payment may be required only if the requester has failed to pay before or the fee will exceed $250 (§552(a)(4)(A)(v)).
- Missed deadlines cost the agency fees. An agency that misses its time limit generally may not charge search fees (duplication fees for news media), with exceptions for unusual circumstances and very large requests (§552(a)(4)(A)(viii)).
6. Expedited processing
Agencies must expedite a request when the requester shows a compelling need (§552(a)(6)(E)):
| Ground | Who can claim it | What to show |
|---|---|---|
| Imminent threat to life or physical safety | Anyone | The threat, and why the records bear on it |
| Urgency to inform the public about actual or alleged federal government activity | A person primarily engaged in disseminating information | The activity; why delay harms public understanding now (a pending vote, rule, hearing or deadline); our dissemination record |
- The agency must decide within 10 calendar days of the request; a denial of expedition can be appealed.
- The statement must be certified true and correct to the best of the requester’s knowledge and belief.
- Some agency regulations add grounds beyond the statute (for example, widespread media interest raising questions about government integrity). Verify the ground in the component’s own regulation before relying on it.
7. Clocks and tracking
| Event | Time limit | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Agency determination on a request | 20 working days from receipt | §552(a)(6)(A)(i) |
| Extension for “unusual circumstances” | Up to 10 more working days, by written notice | §552(a)(6)(B)(i) |
| Expedition decision | 10 calendar days | §552(a)(6)(E)(ii) |
| Our administrative appeal | At least 90 days after an adverse determination (agency sets the period) | §552(a)(6)(A)(i)(III) |
| Agency decision on an appeal | 20 working days from receipt | §552(a)(6)(A)(ii) |
- A “determination” means the agency has told us what it will produce and withhold, and why, not merely acknowledged the request (CREW v. FEC, D.C. Cir. 2013).
- Log every request, letter, call and page received in the tracking log (Appendix A), with our own control numbers on each production, as committee staff Bates-stamp theirs. Calendar the 20-day mark on filing; ask the FOIA Public Liaison for an estimated completion date when it passes.
8. Reading the response: withholdings, foreseeable harm, segregability
For the exemption-by-exemption table, use litigation-support-ediscovery-analyst. Here we ask the questions that decide whether to appeal. Each answer goes into the withholding review (Appendix D).
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Is each withholding tied to a named exemption? | The agency bears the burden of justifying withholding |
| Did the agency find that release would foreseeably harm an interest the exemption protects? | Required since 2016 for discretionary exemptions (§552(a)(8)(A)) |
| Was every reasonably segregable portion released? | The statute requires it (§552(b), final sentence) |
| Is the amount withheld indicated, and the exemption marked at the redaction? | Required where technically feasible (§552(b)) |
| For Exemption 3, is the withholding statute named? | Not every confidentiality clause qualifies |
| For Exemption 5 deliberative-process claims, is the record 25 or more years old? | That privilege does not apply to records that old (§552(b)(5)) |
| Was the search adequate (custodians, terms, date range)? | An inadequate search is appealable apart from any exemption |
A redaction is a fact about the agency’s decision, not about the hidden content. We do not report what a redaction “must” conceal.
9. Appeals and OGIS mediation
- Appeal in writing to the head of the agency within the period the denial letter states (never less than 90 days). Name each item, each withholding contested and the reason (§8 questions). Ask for the records released on a rolling basis. Keep every letter: the appeal record is the record a court will see.
- FOIA Public Liaison. Every adverse letter must offer dispute-resolution help from the agency’s liaison and from OGIS. Use the liaison for delays and scope disputes before appealing.
- OGIS (the Office of Government Information Services at the National Archives) is the federal FOIA ombudsman. It mediates disputes between requesters and agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation, at any stage, and does not take sides. Request assistance after first trying the agency’s liaison.
10. Litigation basics: when to call counsel
We do not litigate. This section tells the editor when to call counsel and what counsel will ask for.
| Fact | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | A federal district court reviews withholding de novo; the agency bears the burden (§552(a)(4)(B)) |
| Venue | Where the requester resides or has its principal place of business, where the records are, or the District of Columbia (§552(a)(4)(B)) |
| Constructive exhaustion | If the agency misses the time limit, the requester is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies and may sue without appealing (§552(a)(6)(C)(i)); the court may allow more time for “exceptional circumstances” |
| Vaughn index | In litigation the agency may be ordered to produce an itemized index tying each withheld record or portion to an exemption and justification (Vaughn v. Rosen, 1973) |
| Segregability | The court must find that all reasonably segregable, non-exempt material was released |
| Fees | A requester who has substantially prevailed may recover attorney fees and costs (§552(a)(4)(E)) |
Call counsel when any of these is true: the 20-day clock (or an appeal clock) has run with no determination on a request central to a story; an appeal is denied on a record we believe is not exempt; records may be destroyed; the agency invokes national security (Exemption 1) or law-enforcement (Exemption 7) grounds over a large set; or a deadline outside our control (an election, a rule’s effective date) makes delay itself the harm. The Reporters Committee Legal Hotline takes public-records questions from journalists; it informs but does not represent, so it is a first call, not counsel. The escalation memo (§12) is what we hand them.
11. State public-records laws: a method, not fifty rows
Every state has its own statute, deadlines, fee rules and enforcement path; none is FOIA. We do not copy fifty statutes into this skill. We read each one by a fixed method and record it in a quick-card row (Appendix B). The full 50-state card is a refreshable KB document built row by row with this method; it is not part of this skill.
- Find the statute. Start at the Reporters Committee Open Government Guide, which arranges every state’s open-records and open-meetings law under one standard outline, with a “Compare” view across states. Then open the statute itself on the legislature’s site and confirm the current text.
- Read in this order: who is covered (legislature? courts? contractors?); what counts as a record; who may request (residents only?); response deadline and whether silence counts as denial; fees and waiver; exemptions; appeal path (agency head, attorney general, ombudsman, court); attorney-fee recovery.
- Check the date. Record the date the statute was read and the guide’s update date. Deadlines change.
- Record what the guide says differently from the statute as a “Verify” note, and use the statute.
Worked examples (read via the RCFP guide, 2026-10-28; confirm against the statute before use):
| State | Response deadline | Statute cited by the guide |
|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts | 10 business days | G.L. c. 66, §10(a) |
| California | Determination within 10 days, absent unusual circumstances; no expedited processing | Cal. Gov’t Code §7922.535 |
| Nevada | By the end of the fifth business day | NRS 239.0107 |
12. Outputs
| Output | Structure |
|---|---|
| Request plan | Hypothesis sentence; strategy (§1); items; custodians; date range; component; fee category; expedite yes/no |
| Component map | Department → component → FOIA office (confirmed on FOIA.gov, with date) → liaison → FOIA regulation (CFR cite) → notes on what it holds |
| Request tracking log | Appendix A |
| Fee-waiver and expedite justification | Appendix C, filled per request |
| Withholding review | Appendix D, one row per withholding |
| Escalation memo | Request IDs; dates and clocks; what was withheld and why we dispute it; what deadline makes delay harmful; attachments |
| State quick-card row | Appendix B |
Sources
Primary:
- 5 U.S.C. §552 (FOIA), full text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552 [V, confirmed 2026-10-28: fee categories and news-media definition (a)(4)(A)(ii); fee waiver (a)(4)(A)(iii); advance payment and free allowances (a)(4)(A)(iv)–(v); fee penalty (a)(4)(A)(viii); 20-day and appeal clocks (a)(6)(A); 10-working-day extension (a)(6)(B); constructive exhaustion (a)(6)(C)(i); expedited processing (a)(6)(E); foreseeable harm (a)(8)(A); segregability (b); OGIS mediation (h)(3)]
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/12-5004/12-5004-2013-04-02.html [V, confirmed 2026-10-28]
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973): cited and described in ACUS Sourcebook, https://sourcebook.acus.gov/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act [V, confirmed 2026-10-28]
- CRS, The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): A Legal Overview, R46238: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46238 [V, confirmed 2026-10-28]
- OGIS mediation program: https://www.archives.gov/ogis/mediation-program and https://www.archives.gov/ogis/mediation-program/request-assistance [V, confirmed 2026-10-28]
- HHS FOIA regulation, 45 CFR Part 5 (the §2 worked example; added 2026-11-01 from the pilot score, not research-confirmed). Verify the current text on eCFR (https://www.ecfr.gov/) before citing a section.
- Paperwork Reduction Act information-collection reviews: https://www.reginfo.gov/ (§3; added 2026-11-01, not research-confirmed). Verify current URL.
Practitioner:
- Reporters Committee, Open Government Guide (state laws, standard outline, Compare view): https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-guide; state pages used above: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-guide/massachusetts, https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-guide/california, https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-guide/nevada [V, confirmed 2026-10-28]
- American Oversight, sample request (native format, rolling production, records-management citation, pre-search contact offer): https://www.americanoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/TREAS-20-2641.pdf [V, confirmed 2026-10-28]
- ProPublica, “Heritage Foundation Staffers Flood Federal Agencies With Thousands of Information Requests”: https://www.propublica.org/article/have-government-employees-mentioned-climate-change-voting-or-gender-identity-the-heritage-foundation-wants-to-know [V via ProPublica in study §6.4; URL confirmed 2026-10-28]. The study’s “50k+ requests claimed” figure is Heritage’s own claim [Verify before quoting].
- FOIA.gov (agency search, annual and quarterly agency FOIA data): https://www.foia.gov/ [confirmed 2026-10-29 via ca_research.py extract]
- MuckRock (file and search public records requests): https://www.muckrock.com/ [confirmed 2026-10-29 via ca_research.py extract]
- Reporters Committee Legal Hotline (journalists and media lawyers; public-records access; informational only, no attorney-client relationship): https://www.rcfp.org/legal-hotline/ [confirmed 2026-10-29 via ca_research.py extract]
Cross-references
congressional-oversight-procedure: the committee letter this skill’s request structure mirrors; subpoenas and contempt.government-oversight-mechanisms: IG, GAO and CRS reports, often the faster route to the same facts.whistleblower-protections: when a source, not an agency, holds the records.public-records-research-specialist: court records, spending and corporate databases; DocumentCloud publishing.litigation-support-ediscovery-analyst: the exemption table; reviewing and Bates-logging large productions.legal-research-specialist: legislative history and statute research.timeline-builder: dating records once they arrive.osint-orchestrator: source tiers and chain of custody for released records.- Request-letter templates (planned: S5).
Safety
- Not legal advice. This skill explains procedure. Whether to sue, and anything said to a court, is for qualified counsel; route readers and staff there (§10).
- No impersonation of government authority. Our requests never mimic a committee letter’s letterhead or a subpoena’s language, never claim the power to compel, and never set a “deadline” the law does not set. We borrow the committee letter’s structure, not its authority.
- Allegation vs. finding vs. charge. A record released under FOIA shows what an official wrote, not that it was true or unlawful. Agency records of allegations are allegations; we say whose words they are.
- Partisan symmetry. Requesters on the left (American Oversight, CREW) and the right (Heritage’s Oversight Project) use the same law. We describe their methods in the same terms, and we file against officials of either party by the same standard.
- Private persons. Do not request records about private individuals beyond what the story needs; never name junior staff from a keyword sweep without the
patriot-private-citizen-inclusion-gate. Expect Exemptions 6 and 7(C) and respect them. - No vexatious volume. We do not file to burden an office or to punish a person. The volume model (§1) is not our default.
- Redactions. We do not speculate in print about what a redaction hides.
- Human files every request. An agent may draft and track; a named editor signs and files.
Appendix A: request tracking
There is one tracker format, not one per skill. Log every request as a row in the shared request-tracker CSV: schema, fields and the request_id format (rr-YYYYMMDD-NN) are in Appendix E of records-request-drafting. When a production arrives against a tracked request, assign CA control numbers under the format and sequencing rules in §2 of production-review-and-exhibit-management, and record the first and last number in the tracker’s control_first/control_last columns.
Appendix B: state quick-card row (schema)
| Field | Example entry |
|---|---|
| State | Massachusetts |
| Statute | G.L. c. 66, §10 |
| Covered bodies / exclusions | (from the statute) |
| Who may request | Any person / residents only |
| Response deadline | 10 business days |
| Silence = denial? | Yes / No / Unclear |
| Fees and waiver | (from the statute) |
| Appeal path | Agency → state supervisor of records → court |
| Attorney fees recoverable? | Yes / No |
| Read on / guide updated | 2026-10-28 / (date) |
| Verify notes | Differences between guide and statute |
Appendix C: justification paragraphs (skeletons)
News-media status. “Citizen Analyst gathers information of potential interest to [segment of the public], uses editorial skills to turn raw materials into distinct works, and distributes them to [audience: site, newsletter, reach]. Recent examples: [links].”
Fee waiver. “The requested records concern [specific operations or activities of the government]. Disclosure is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding because [what the public does not know; why these records answer it]. We will publish our analysis at [outlet] at no charge. We have no commercial interest in the records.”
Expedited processing. “We are primarily engaged in disseminating information. There is an urgency to inform the public about [actual or alleged federal government activity] because [the dated event: vote, rule, hearing, deadline]. I certify that this statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.”
Appendix D: withholding review (table)
| Page / record | Exemption cited | Foreseeable harm stated? | Segregable portion released? | Amount marked? | Our view | Appeal? |
|---|