Case Explained: MICHAEL DRIGGS; THOMAS MICHAEL LOGAN; DAVID LOGAN; MEGAN MARX; TERRI MUMLEY; JOHN ZIMMERLEE; CAROL HRDLICKA; GEORGE PATTERSON; POW INVESTIGATIVE PROJECT, INC. Plaintiffs – v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Defendant –

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-04 The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Central Intelligence Agency in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action seeking disclosure of documents regarding American prisoners of war and government recovery efforts. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to compel a search of the CIA’s operational files under the CIA Information Act because the agency was still conducting its search, meaning it had not yet “improperly withheld” records, and the plaintiffs provided only general affidavits rather than specific evidence of improper placement. Regarding redactions to the Joint Report, the court determined that the CIA’s affidavit sufficiently described the withheld material with reasonable specificity and explained how it fell under FOIA Exemption 1 (national defense and foreign policy secrets) and Exemption 3 (statutory exemptions protecting intelligence sources, methods, and agency personnel). The court rejected arguments that the affidavit was conclusory or that past disagreements regarding the accuracy of a National Intelligence Estimate constituted bad faith sufficient to overcome the presumption of the agency’s good faith. As a result, the district court’s decision is affirmed, and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the disclosure of the redacted information or an in camera inspection. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.