Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law v. National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency; National Aeronautics and Space Administration

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36–3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
LEONARD WEINGLASS, ESQ.,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY;
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-55754
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03375-MMM-JC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 9, 2013
Pasadena, California
FILED
JAN 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circuit
Judges.
The district court erred in granting summary judgment without requiring the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to submit a classified declaration for in
camera review. The government’s unclassified declaration failed to provide
“reasonably specific detail” that would show why merely acknowledging the
existence of records might reveal intelligence sources or methods, or affect our
foreign relations. See Berman v. CIA, 501 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007); see
also 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), (3); 50 U.S.C. § 403–1(i)(1); Exec. Order No. 13,526,
§§ 1.1, 1.4(c), (d), 75 Fed. Reg. 707 (Jan. 5, 2010). If this were sufficient to
support summary judgment, the government would be free to issue a Glomar
response in practically every case involving satellite images and records, as well as
many other surveillance activities.
On remand, the agency shall provide a classified declaration for in camera
review by the district court, as it offered at oral argument. The court may then
reconsider its summary judgment ruling in light of the information so provided.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --