18 USC 1389

Isaac v. DOJ (FOIA Complaint)

Odiferous Grunt

— 6 min read
Share
Isaac v. DOJ (FOIA Complaint)

Case No. 6:26-cv-00832-MTK

I. Introduction

This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, to compel the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") to conduct adequate searches and produce records responsive to two FOIA requests submitted by Plaintiff on March 19, 2026. As of the date of this Complaint, more than twenty business days have elapsed since DOJ received both requests. Neither the Civil Rights Division ("CRD") nor the National Security Division ("NSD") has produced responsive records, NSD by total non-response, and CRD by substituting a burden objection for a lawful determination. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief compelling production.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), which grants federal district courts jurisdiction to enjoin agencies from withholding records and to order production of improperly withheld agency records. Jurisdiction also lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). Plaintiff resides in Linn County, Oregon, within the Eugene Division of the District of Oregon.

III. Parties

  1. Plaintiff Logan Martin Isaac is a United States citizen and resident of Albany, Oregon. Plaintiff submitted the FOIA requests at issue in this action and is a person within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 551(2).
  2. Defendant United States Department of Justice is a federal agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). DOJ's Civil Rights Division ("CRD") and National Security Division ("NSD") are components of DOJ and are the components to which Plaintiff directed his requests.

IV. Factual Allegations

A. The FOIA Requests

  1. On March 19, 2026, Plaintiff submitted two separate FOIA requests via electronic mail, each seeking records related to DOJ's intake, jurisdiction, and enforcement activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1389, the Soldiers Amendment to the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 ("HCPA"). Plaintiff submitted the requests at issue under a pseudonym for investigative purposes. Plaintiff has redacted the pseudonym from the attached exhibits to preserve operational integrity. Unredacted copies are available to the Court upon request or for in camera review.
  2. The first request was directed to the Civil Rights Division at CRT.FOIArequests@usdoj.gov. (attached as Exhibit A) Plaintiff sought records concerning: (a) any complaints received by CRD alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1389; (b) any internal guidance, policy memoranda, or directives addressing CRD's jurisdiction over § 1389; and (c) any inter-component communications between CRD and other DOJ components regarding enforcement responsibility under § 1389.
  3. The second request was directed to the National Security Division at nsdfoia@usdoj.gov. (attached as Exhibit B) Plaintiff sought records concerning: (a) any cases opened, prosecuted, or declined by NSD under 18 U.S.C. § 1389; and (b) any internal guidance addressing NSD's use of or jurisdiction over § 1389.

B. DOJ's Receipt of the Requests

  1. The National Security Division acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff's request on or about March 27, 2026, assigning tracking number NSD FOIA/PA #26-171 (attached as Exhibit C). The acknowledgment confirmed that searches would be limited to NSD records and stated that a response would be provided on a first-in, first-out basis.
  2. On April 14, 2026 — twenty-six calendar days after submission — the Civil Rights Division responded, assigning tracking number FOI/PA No. 26-00351-F (attached as Exhibit D). Rather than conducting a search or issuing a determination, CRD asserted that Plaintiff's request failed the "reasonably describes" standard of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) and invited Plaintiff to narrow the request, citing AFGE v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 907 F.2d 203, 209 (D.C. Cir. 1990), and Power the Future v. White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2025 WL 2206947 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 2025). CRD did not deny any records.

C. Failure to Respond Within the Statutory Period

  1. FOIA requires agencies to determine whether to comply with a request and provide notice of that determination within twenty business days of receipt. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). The twenty-business-day statutory deadline for both requests elapsed on or about April 17, 2026.
  2. As of April 17, 2026, the National Security Division had produced no responsive records, issued no final determination, asserted no exemptions, and sought no extension of time under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). The Civil Rights Division, having responded only with a burden objection rather than a search or determination, likewise had not complied with its statutory obligations as of that date.
  3. On April 14, 2026, Plaintiff responded to CRD's narrowing request, contesting the asserted burden and declining to narrow the request (attached as Exhibit E). Plaintiff's response identified that the request is limited to a single federal statute — 18 U.S.C. § 1389 — over a defined time window, and argued that this is categorically distinct from the expansive subject-matter requests addressed in the precedents CRD cited. Plaintiff further requested that CRD clarify in writing whether it had identified a large volume of responsive records, whether its search systems cannot efficiently retrieve records by statute cited, or whether a search would return no responsive records — in which case a formal no-records determination would be appropriate and acceptable. As of the date of this Complaint, CRD has not responded to Plaintiff's April 14, 2026 letter.
  4. DOJ has constructively denied both requests. NSD has failed entirely to make a determination within the statutory period. CRD's deflection to a burden objection — without conducting a search, issuing a proper determination, or substantiating the claimed burden — does not constitute a lawful response under FOIA and cannot toll the statutory clock indefinitely. Plaintiff contested CRD's objection on the merits in writing and received no reply. Plaintiff has exhausted available administrative remedies on both tracks and is entitled to seek immediate judicial relief. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

D. The Requests Seek Records of Significant Public Interest

  1. The records sought bear directly on the question of whether DOJ has fulfilled its statutory obligations under the HCPA with respect to the military and veteran community. Congress expressly placed military service members and their families "on equal footing with other protected classes" when it enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1389. See 155 Cong. Rec. S7686–89 (daily ed. July 20, 2009) (Sessions Amendment No. 1616, adopted 92-0).
  2. Publicly available federal court records reflect no prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1389 by the Civil Rights Division. DOJ's public-facing hate crimes reporting infrastructure does not include military or veteran status as a reporting category. The records requested would confirm or contradict whether CRD has any intake mechanism, enforcement history, or jurisdictional guidance with respect to § 1389 — information of direct relevance to ongoing public debate about equitable enforcement of federal hate crimes law.

V. Claim for Relief

Violation of FOIA — Failure to Respond Within Statutory Period

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i) and § 552(a)(6)(C)(i)

  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
  2. FOIA requires Defendant to determine whether to comply with Plaintiff's requests within twenty business days of receipt and to notify Plaintiff of its determination. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).
  3. Defendant received Plaintiff's requests on or about March 19, 2026. The statutory deadline elapsed on or about April 17, 2026. Defendant has failed to make any determination, produce any records, assert any exemptions, or seek a lawful extension of time. Defendant is in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). NSD has issued no response of any kind. CRD's April 14, 2026 burden objection, unsupported by any showing of actual record volume and contested in writing by Plaintiff, does not constitute a lawful determination under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).
  4. Plaintiff has constructively exhausted administrative remedies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i) and is entitled to seek immediate de novo review in this Court.
  5. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and the public interest favors disclosure.

VI. Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Declare that Defendant has violated FOIA by failing to timely respond to Plaintiff's requests of March 19, 2026;

B. Order Defendant to conduct adequate searches of Civil Rights Division and National Security Division records responsive to Plaintiff's requests and to produce all non-exempt responsive records within twenty (20) days of the Court's Order;

C. Order Defendant to provide a Vaughn index identifying and justifying any withholdings within the same period;

D. Award Plaintiff fees and other litigation costs pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) to the extent applicable;

E. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Exhibits

Read more