May 7 Minutes - (Certified)

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee convened virtually at 10:00 a.m. ET on May 7, 2026.

In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10 (codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1014), the meeting was open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 12:49 p.m. Meeting materials are available on the Committee’s website https://www.archives.gov/ogis/foia-advisory-committee/2024-2026-term.

Committee members present at the meeting:

• Alina M. Semo, Director, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) (Committee Chairperson)
• Jason R. Baron, University of Maryland
• Nieva Brock, U.S. Department of Defense
• David Cuillier, University of Florida
• Whitney Frazier-Jenkins, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
• Sean Glendening,  U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy
• Elizabeth Hempowicz, American Oversight
• Scott Hodes, Department of Homeland Security
• Shelley Kimball, Johns Hopkins University
• Margaret Kwoka, The Ohio State University 
• Frank LoMonte, CNN
• Marianne Manheim, Department of Health and Human Services
• Deborah O. Moore, Department of Education
• Ryan Mulvey, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
• Richard Peltz-Steele, University of Massachusetts Law School
• Sarah Weicksel, American Historical Association
• Nick Wittenberg, representing requesters in FOIA's commercial fee category

Others present or participating in the meeting:

• Kirsten B. Mitchell, Committee’s Designated Federal Officer, NARA

Opening Remarks from the Designated Federal Officer

Ms. Mitchell opened the May 7, 2026 Federal FOIA Advisory Committee meeting, noting that it was being recorded and streamed publicly on the National Archives YouTube channel in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

She confirmed a quorum with 16 members present and noted that Mr. Peltz-Steele was unable to join and Dr. Weicksel would be present only for the first hour.

Ms. Mitchell noted that meeting materials were available on the Committee page of the OGIS website.

Welcome and Updates from the Chairperson

Ms. Semo welcomed attendees to the ninth meeting of the Committee’s sixth term. She noted that the three Subcommittees—Statutory Reform, Volume and Frequency, and Implementation—would present progress reports during the meeting. Ms. Semo noted housekeeping and administrative items, including that minutes from the April 2nd meeting and the March 5th meeting transcript were posted on the website, the April 2nd transcript would be posted when ready, and the FOIA Ombuds blog had information about nominations for the 2026–2028 Committee term. She noted that the chat function was for procedural matters and asked that substantive comments be made out loud rather than via chat, since chat entries are not recorded in the transcript. Ms. Semo noted that written public comments are welcome via the Public Comments form on the website and noted that oral public comments at the end of the meeting would be limited to three minutes per speaker as announced in the Federal Register.

Ms. Semo noted that only two meetings remained in the term, June 11th and July 16th. She requested that subcommittee reports be completed by the June 11 meeting.

Ms. Mitchell noted Mr. Peltz-Steele had joined, bringing attendance to 17 members. In response to a recent question, she noted that under the Committee charter and FACA, the Committee is composed of representative, non‑government members, and government employees. Representative members represent specific stakeholder groups, such as academia or news media requesters, while regular government members are full‑time agency employees who represent their agency’s interests. 

Ms. Mitchell explained that this distinction accounts for why non‑government members are identified by constituency and represent that constituency while government members are identified by agency and represent that agency. She noted that the nomination period for the 2026–2028 term had opened and that self‑nominations and nominations of others would be accepted through June 1. She reviewed the voting procedure: any member, including the chair, may move that the Committee vote; the bylaws require no second, although it is customary; and if a voice vote is unclear, she may call a roll-call vote.

Mr. Mulvey asked a question about the bylaws: while government members are described as representing their agencies, the bylaws also instruct members to exercise “individual best judgment.” He asked for clarification on what it means for a government member to exercise individual best judgment while representing their agency.

Ms. Mitchell said she would consult the Committee’s FACA attorney and ethics counsel. She noted that at the start of each term or upon appointment, government members receive a briefing from NARA’s ethics and FACA attorney.

Ms. Kwoka noted that while government members represent their agencies, she also values the breadth of career experience government members bring—experience that may include FOIA roles across multiple agencies. She noted that an individual’s career history informs their judgment and wanted that perspective to be recognized rather than narrowly construed as only an agency-specific viewpoint.

Ms. Semo introduced the Implementation Subcommittee co‑chaired by Mr. Baron and Ms. Manheim.

Implementation Subcommittee Report

Co-chairs: Mr. Baron and Ms. Manheim

Mr. Baron thanked the Subcommittee members for their work reviewing how prior Committee recommendations had been implemented or otherwise acknowledged. He said the Subcommittee would deliver a full report at the next meeting.

Ms. Manheim noted the Subcommittee had worked closely with many FOIA practitioners to compile useful data from the last year and a half and to synthesize it into actionable material.

Mr. Baron then invited Dr. Moore and Dr. Kimball from the Barriers to Implementation working group to present three draft recommendations that stem from the focus groups and other subcommittee  work. Dr. Moore stated the three draft recommendations were being presented for initial discussion and feedback; the group planned to submit refined recommendations and explanatory justification at the June meeting that would incorporate input from this discussion.

Dr. Moore presented the first draft recommendation: establish a collaboration network for FOIA professionals. She noted that although the focus groups were not asked directly about creating a network, participants repeatedly and spontaneously signaled a desire for greater connection, sharing contact information, advice, and plans for continuing collaboration beyond single sessions. Dr. Moore noted that strong participation in the focus groups despite other work stress supported the conclusion that FOIA professionals want more avenues for connection and knowledge sharing. She acknowledged existing venues that serve certain constituencies or topical interests (for example, parts of the Chief FOIA Officers Council, including the Council’s Technology Committee) but noted that there remains a need for a broader, inclusive mechanism reaching across career stages and interests. 

Dr. Moore proposed that a cross‑agency body such as the Chief FOIA Officers Council’s Committee on Cross‑Agency Collaboration and Innovation (COCACI), could serve as a central organizer, but she recommended that that body’s role be limited to coordinating membership and enabling formation of smaller, self‑governing groups to reduce burden and foster trust. She noted preliminary receptivity from COCACI’s co‑chairs and urged that any network be designed with guiding principles of simplicity, flexibility, and transferability to maximize sustainability and to facilitate peer sharing of successful implementation strategies.

Dr. Weicksel presented the second draft recommendation: the Office of Information Policy (OIP) should require status reporting from agencies on implementation of FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations, either through questions in the CFO Reports or through another public reporting mechanism. She noted focus group findings that many FOIA practitioners were unaware of Committee recommendations, that the 2025 Chief FOIA Officer Report question asking agencies to indicate implementation status of Committee recommendations yielded useful data, and that agencies’ previous inclusion of such a question significantly increased awareness and advocacy use of the committee’s work. Dr. Weicksel noted that using an existing, low‑cost, low-effort mechanism, for example, reintroducing or adapting a reporting question in the Chief FOIA Officer Report, would improve awareness and support adoption across agencies.

Dr. Kimball presented the third draft recommendation: OGIS should create a resource in addition to the FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations dashboard aimed at helping FOIA professionals identify actionable and relevant recommendations. She noted that the existing dashboard tracks implementation status, but focus group participants found it difficult to search for practical, implementable recommendations. Dr. Kimball noted how a streamlined chart provided to focus group participants, highlighting agency‑applicable, manageable actions, was perceived as more useful. The Subcommittee’s internal work produced example categorizations and options intended to increase visibility, usability, and adoption; the plan is to include such examples as appendices in the final report to lower the burden of creating such a resource.

Mr. Baron suggested proceeding through discussion of the recommendations in order, and Ms. Semo clarified that these were proposed recommendations for feedback only and would not be voted on at this meeting.

Ms. Brock noted observing similar needs among practitioners in her agency and across the Intelligence Community and calling the collaboration proposal a good way to memorialize and enable community‑building.

Ms. Kwoka thanked the Subcommittee for the rigorous focus group process and the thoughtfulness of the recommendations, then asked why the Committee would not vote today given how developed the recommendations appeared; she suggested finalizing what is ready so remaining meetings could focus on remaining work.

Mr. Baron noted that the Subcommittee had initially prepared commentary to accompany the recommendations but had decided not to include that commentary today because some issues remained to be resolved. He said it was appropriate for the full Committee to see recommendations together with their explanatory commentary to ensure there are no surprises, and that withholding the commentary until it is fully ready is why they were not seeking a vote today. 

Dr. Moore noted the draft commentary was still in draft and that today’s discussion could result in helpful refinements before a June vote.

About the second recommendation, Mr. Baron asked whether OIP would be receptive to reintroducing implementation reporting.

Mr. Glendening noted that he did not know why the implementation question was not included in the 2026 Chief FOIA Officer reports, because it had been removed from the report prior to his arrival and that OIP had no current position until they could review commentary and background.

Ms. Manheim noted that the recommendation did not require the prior question be brought back in identical form. She asked whether the Subcommittee should provide more specificity about format or scope.

Dr. Moore suggested keeping the recommendation sufficiently open to allow OIP discretion. OIP could restore a prior question, adapt it, or use another format such as a response sheet indicating which recommendations agencies have implemented.

Ms. Manheim noted that clearer direction would get a better result.

Mr. Baron noted that the Subcommittee should not constrain OIP’s method; the Subcommittee’s commentary would make clear the Committee’s desire for acknowledgement and flexibility in how OIP implements that goal.

Mr. Glendening asked to see the Subcommittee’s commentary before finalization.

Mr. Baron introduced discussion of the third recommendation.

Ms. Brock noted the current language was vague in the proposed approach to making recommendations easier to access and use. She noted that labeling something “easy to access” seemed broad and, while detailed implementation guidance typically appears in commentary rather than the recommendation text itself, the lack of concrete definition made it difficult for her to visualize the intended outcome, she noted.

Dr Kimball acknowledged the point and indicated they would address specificity and examples in the written commentary and appendices supporting the final recommendations. She noted internal work to categorize recommendations by function and to produce simple, usable products for practitioners. She said the Subcommittee would provide that example and a functional categorization, especially for recommendations aimed at agencies.

Mr. Baron noted the Subcommittee would continue refining commentary that would be included in the Subcommittee report.

Ms. Semo confirmed the Committee would expect further commentary on all three Implementation Subcommittee recommendations and would plan to vote on them at the June 11 meeting.

Ms. Semo introduced the Volume and Frequency Subcommittee, co-chaired by Mr. Wittenberg and Ms. Brock. 

Volume and Frequency Subcommittee Report 

Co-chairs: Mr. Wittenberg and Ms. Brock

Mr. Wittenberg introduced Dr. Kimball to present the survey results and draft recommendations. 

Dr. Kimball noted the results of the survey conducted from the last week of January to the last week of March [2026]. It contained qualitative and quantitative questions, and was in two parts. The first part explored volume and frequency of requests, especially those that may be vexatious or unduly burdensome and the third‐party, AI-generated requests. The qualitative or open‐ended questions were coded by Dr. Kimball who tagged and described the elements of those responses before grouping them into commonalities. The closed‐ended questions were shown on the meeting slides as charts of percentages, and open‐ended questions were shown as lists of concepts and ideas. The working group sought to have participants give perceptions and experiences with no real preconceived ideas. There were 211 total responses and 193 were eligible because eligibility was limited to FOIA professionals or those who are currently in service or who had left service within the past three years. All agency response sizes were represented.  One of the first questions was a quantitative closed question that asked, “Do you have concerns about the volume of records your agency processes?” The majority of participants had some level of concern about the volume of records their agency processes: 38% were extremely concerned, 29% were moderately concerned, 7% were not at all concerned. 

The question “What are the most significantly challenging forms of FOIA requests your agency faces, particularly in terms of resource allocation and maintaining response times?” had open-ended responses that identified the most challenging request types—broad requests for email, vague or overbroad requests, voluminous requests, and requests perceived not to be made in good faith, such as nonsensical or politically motivated requests, requests that were deemed to have no public interest value, or repetitious and voluminous requests. 

Dr. Kimball noted that participants often cited lack of resources, asking for increased staffing, increased technology, and noting there was insufficient time to process requests. She noted additional types of challenging requests: complex requests, multi part, or mass requests where they were getting large requests or repeated requests from a lot of people asking for the same thing. 

When asked “What are the qualities found in requests that reach the level of vexatious or unduly burdensome?” respondents most often cited broad, voluminous, vague requests; expansive timeframe requests; multi-agency/multi-custodian searches for records; duplicative or campaign style submissions; and bad faith noncooperation. Strategies agencies reported using to prevent such requests from delaying others included triage practices, such as dual  or multi track processing; technology for search and review; proactive outreach to requesters, such as narrowing scope; and staffing management, such as contractors, overtime, reassignments.  

When asked “How does your agency address the strain caused by excessively challenging FOIA requests?” respondents favored better technology including automation for review and filtering, and tools to identify duplicates or AI-generated content. Dr. Kimball noted that some respondents said they let requests fall into the backlog. She also noted recurring comments that agencies need leadership support and more resources. When asked to suggest solutions for unduly burdensome requests, respondents asked for statutory updates to limit vague or repetitive requests, requester training and guidance to narrow requests, selective fee use or nominal submission fees, clearer standards and official guidance, and process improvements such as better organized records management or rolling productions. A minority suggested more punitive approaches such as banning or denying vexatious requesters.

Dr. Kimball noted mixed awareness and perception of AI-generated requests: 46% of respondents reported receiving requests they believed to be AI generated, 50% were unsure, and 4% said no. Among those who believed they had received AI-generated requests, most estimated AI-generated requests comprised 10% or fewer of their caseload. Issues that made agencies suspect AI generation included identical language, overly formal or jargon heavy language, high volume of requests arriving quickly from the same requester, non-specific requests, requester reputation, the content of records requested, AI-detection software, or admission by the requester. The wish list to manage AI requests included: banning or screening AI requests, technology to authenticate human requesters, bundling/aggregating AI requests internally, requester outreach, statutory changes to require requesters be human, and improving process efficiency.

Dr. Kimball presented two draft recommendations for feedback, which were based on the survey results and would be finalized before the next meeting. 

Dr. Kimball presented the first draft recommendation. She noted that the working group formulated the recommendations in response to the consistent concern of a lack of resources and staffing, compounded by the unprecedented loss of FOIA personnel in the past 17 months while the government was seeing increases in  FOIA requests.

The first recommendation urged agencies to align FOIA staffing to current demand by analyzing backlogs, request volume and complexity, and employees’ processing capacity—specifically recommending staffing sufficient to eradicate existing backlogs and to ensure timely responses. The second recommendation was for the next FOIA Advisory Committee term to leverage the Subcommittee’s survey and focus group data to identify priority improvement areas, such as software procurement efficiencies, FOIA culture and leadership support, AI potential for processing efficiency, and FOIA statute modernization. Because the data collection had been pushed back because of government shutdowns, the current term had limited bandwidth to fully analyze and act on the data collected. The recommendation would help the next term to pick up the mantle and use the data, offering some directions for potential recommendations in subsequent terms.

Mr. Baron asked how the staffing recommendation related to another Committee recommendation for funding for federal FOIA offices.

Dr. Kimball said the Subcommittee had coordinated with Dr. Moore to align the recommendations and intended this recommendation to focus on internal agency alignment of staffing, distinct from Dr. Moore’s congressional funding proposal.

Ms. Brock noted that agencies must take ownership to reduce backlogs even if congressional funding does not materialize.

Mr. Mulvey asked a methodological question about whether the survey distinguished between AI used to draft requests and AI used to submit requests. He noted those were two different issues with different implications.

Dr. Kimball noted the survey intentionally used a broad definition of “AI generated” to capture practitioners’ perceptions and definitions.

Mr. Wittenberg noted that keeping the question open ended was helpful.

Mr. Glendening noted his agreement with the findings of the survey and said OIP’s observations and discussions mirrored the findings. He noted his agreement with the staffing recommendation and emphasized the tradeoff—whether to prioritize additional staffing or better technology. He noted that technology investments can improve staff productivity.

Dr. Moore noted that the staffing and congressional‑funding recommendations are complementary and noted overlap with prior Committee recommendations, viewing that overlap as a strong demand signal. She asked for clarification on the phrase “isolate requests in process.”

Dr Kimball answered that isolating certain unduly burdensome requests would be to keep them in a holding pattern while the agency is responding to them.

Ms. Manheim asked about agency representation in the survey sample.

Dr. Kimball noted that to protect confidentiality the survey did not collect identifiable agency data but did ask respondents to indicate agency size to contextualize responses.

Mr. Baron noted three suggestions for the Subcommittee’s commentary. First, he suggested revisiting some of the prior term’s recommendations, noting Recommendation 2024-02 that OIP should encourage agencies to proactively offer to discuss requests with requesters, and Recommendation 2024-03 that OIP should encourage agencies to provide interim sample productions. The Subcommittee's commentary can connect the survey findings to Recommendations 2024-02 and 2024-03. He noted that the presentation implies that voluminous requests are, per se, burdensome; however, because of email archives agencies have millions of emails and many requests would be voluminous in terms of the number of hits under a keyword. That would not be a vexatious request; many well-meaning requests will necessitate searches across very large repositories of electronic records. He suggested a need for agencies to engage with a requester with a sampling process to review 100 documents rather than 100,000 hits.  Second, he suggested teasing apart AI‑related issues: many future requests will be partially AI‑assisted in drafting, but he noted the urgent problem is rapid AI‑driven submissions that burden resources. He suggested that the recommendations should distinguish these dynamics. Third, he encouraged exploration of AI as a positive tool for agencies—chatbots or drafting aids that help requesters frame narrow requests and enable agency triage and automation. He suggested the Committee support future work on how AI can assist processing with human quality control.

Dr. Kimball thanked Mr. Baron for the references and noted the commentary would reflect those points.

Mr. Wittenberg thanked  the survey team for its work and underscored the importance of cross‑agency, non‑siloed technology and staffing strategies given overlapping information needs across FOIA, congressional, and litigation uses.

Ms. Brock thanked Dr. Kimball for her outstanding work and the great data collection. She thanked Mr. Baron for his insight, and noted she would bring to her agency for its consideration the idea of using AI to communicate with  requesters through chat bots.

Mr. Baron noted the possibility of eliminating backlogs by a greater use of AI.

Ms. Semo asked for any other comments. Hearing none, she called for a break.

After the break, Ms. Semo reopened the meeting and introduced the Statutory Reform Subcommittee co‑chaired by Mr. Mulvey and Ms. Frazier‑Jenkins.

Statutory Reform Subcommittee Report

Co-chairs: Ms. Frazier-Jenkins and Mr. Mulvey

Ms. Frazier Jenkins invited Dr. Moore to present an updated draft of the funding recommendation SR 2. 

Dr. Moore noted revisions made after prior feedback. The draft now emphasizes outcome-based rather than formula-based funding considerations. Outcomes include reduced backlogs, greater efficiency, avoidance of litigation. The draft uses a five-year personnel baseline adjusted by influencing factors, and includes safeguards so high performing agencies are not penalized by reductions tied to low backlog levels. She noted stylistic changes for clarity and affirmed the policy intent remained unchanged. 

Ms. Manheim asked whether the funding language favored technology over staffing.

Dr. Moore noted the recommendation is aimed at funding the FOIA function broadly, including staffing, training, and technology. 

Ms. Semo asked if there were additional comments; hearing none, she confirmed that the Committee was ready for a vote on the draft and asked for a motion.

The text of draft recommendation SR-2: “In its annual appropriation language to federal agencies, Congress should require federal agencies to fund their FOIA function at a level sufficient to enable them to fulfill their FOIA requests timely. In determining appropriate funding direction it would provide, Congress should consider an agency’s average workforce size, including any contract staff; changes in the volume and complexity of its requests over the past five years; its average backlog over the past five years; and its operational structure, among other influencing factors.”

Action Item: Ms. Kwoka moved for a vote on draft recommendation SR-2. Mr. Mulvey and Ms. Manheim seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously 16-0 with no abstentions and Dr. Weicksel absent.

Ms. Frazier Jenkins introduced draft recommendation SR 4: “We recommend that Congress create a new Article III [Judicial Branch] ‘FOIA Court’ with specialized jurisdiction over FOIA claims.”

Dr. Cuillier introduced Mr. Mulvey. 

Mr. Mulvey noted that the problem that this recommendation seeks to resolve is a massive increase in FOIA litigation with the vast majority of these lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DDC). The judges of the DDC have noted frustration with the number of FOIA cases on their docket, he said. SR-4 seeks to relieve general District Courts of the number of FOIA cases on their docket by redirecting those cases into a new specialty Article III court that would hear FOIA claims. This has precedent in other specialty Article III courts. Mr. Mulvey noted it would be an open question for Congress whether to grant exclusive versus concurrent jurisdiction. He noted there had been some interest from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and judges. 

Dr. Cuillier noted his initial interactions with people about this idea happened four years ago and the people in the federal courts he spoke to supported this idea and concept. He recently reached out again and hadn't heard back.  He also noted that he and other Subcommittee members met with Mr. Glendening, who could speak for himself on how he feels about it.  The working group tried to incorporate as many folks' input and concerns.

Mr. Peltz Steele asked why the draft favored Article III rather than Article I tribunals created by Congress and administered by the executive branch. 

Mr. Mulvey noted practical and constitutional reasons for preferring Article III. FOIA is already adjudicated in Article III courts, so moving it to a different tribunal might be confusing to Congress who would have to create a new court. Certain aspects of litigation in Article III courts, such as the applicability of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure aren't necessarily going to apply in an Article I setting. Article I courts also aren't all created equal, with some very similar to Article III courts, but others not like a regular court but much more like an agency adjudicatory board. Any decision coming out of an Article I FOIA court could be appealed to an Article III court so the creation of Article I court is duplicative. Finally, he noted, there are a lot of legal questions presented in FOIA cases with legal interpretation, which is the province of the judiciary and not an Article I court. 

Ms. Kwoka noted lifetime judicial appointments and independence as particularly important for adjudicating disputes involving government agencies. She also noted it's easier for Congress to create an Article III court rather than standing up a new institution, which is a heavier lift because it requires a greater number of individual decisions about how that tribunal would work, as opposed to an “off the shelf” option that defaults to how Article III courts work and are administered. 

Mr. Baron noted that some litigants prefer to have circuits where they can go after another circuit has had adverse precedent, and the common law can develop with inconsistent results, but ones that some litigants appreciate. He noted his main opposition against endorsing exclusive jurisdiction for a specialty court is the intersection with other statutes, such as the Federal Records Act, the Privacy Act, and the Presidential Records Act. He noted that it is appropriate for a regular federal district court to hear issues that may have a constitutional dimension to them, and he opposed a FOIA court to be deciding those issues. He urged the Committee to consider the positive reasons why federal district courts, apart from the specialized FOIA court, would continue to have jurisdiction and judicial review over these other statutes.

Ms. Hempowicz noted that in her organization’s Presidential Records Act case, FOIAs are relevant to it in terms of standing, but it is not a FOIA case, so it should not be limited to this FOIA court if given exclusive jurisdiction. She noted that there was benefit to litigation that is outside of the  routine FOIA enforcement to not be limited to a FOIA court.

Mr. Baron noted the possibility that if a FOIA court had exclusive jurisdiction, the Justice Department could move that a case with a FOIA claim should be in a different, specialized court.

Mr. Mulvey acknowledged the concern and reiterated that the recommendation text doesn't take a position on concurrent versus exclusive jurisdiction, nor on whether the court should be given the authority to hear cases about tangentially related statutes. He noted that any Article III judge would be competent to issue decisions about related statutes that touch upon the specialization of the court. The commentary could clarify limits. 

Ms. Kwoka noted support for concurrent jurisdiction for the proposed specialized FOIA Court. Adopting concurrent jurisdiction would not undermine the efficiency goals of the court. She noted that the Committee did not need to resolve every granular detail to support the foundational idea that a specialty court is advisable. She noted that it may be beneficial to refine the explanatory text to clarify exactly what the recommendation means.

Mr. Baron noted concerns regarding the Committee remaining agnostic on the type of jurisdiction. He urged a definitive stance against exclusive jurisdiction, particularly for claims brought under related statutes. Exclusive jurisdiction could open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences, he said. 

Mr. Baron noted that specialized courts should not be deciding complex constitutional issues, even if they arise within the context of transparency litigation. He asked for a commitment from the Subcommittee to include language that explicitly rejects the possibility of exclusive jurisdiction for non-FOIA statutory claims.

Mr. Mulvey noted that the existing draft’s footnotes regarding exclusive versus concurrent jurisdiction were intended only for FOIA claims, not for the potential expansion of the court's authority over other statutes. Mr. Mulvey proposed amending the text to explicitly state that any expansion of subject matter jurisdiction to other statutes would be concurrent.

Mr. Baron suggested adding a specific clause: “without depriving federal District Courts of their jurisdiction over the statutes.”

Mr. Mulvey noted the competency of specialized Article III judges—noting their ability to handle significant constitutional questions in venues like the Court of Federal Claims—and he agreed to massage the text to satisfy all parties.

Ms. Semo noted no other members were in queue to comment and asked for a motion to vote.

The text of the recommendation read: “We recommend that Congress create a new Article III ‘FOIA Court’ with specialized jurisdiction over FOIA claims.”

Action item: Mr. LoMonte moved to vote.

Mr. Hodes asked if the commentary would be edited after the vote on the recommendation.

Mr. Mulvey noted that it would be, and that the commentary was not part of the recommendation.

Mr. Baron noted that if members are uncomfortable with the resolution, past practice is to defer the entire package to a later vote after the commentary has been discussed.

Mr. Glendening expressed a desire to see the commentary before voting and for the recommendation to leave the option for Article I jurisdiction.

Mr. Mulvey noted that would be a significant change to the recommendation.

Mr. Baron noted the recommendation could refrain from mentioning which branch of government the new FOIA court would fall under.

Mr. Mulvey noted that this was a substantive change to the recommendation.

Ms. Mitchell confirmed there had been floor amendments to recommendations in the past, but that this change was significant.

Ms. Semo noted having heard some concern about the commentary and how that would be reflected. She asked for and obtained the Subcommittee co-chairs’ approval to hold the vote until the June meeting to continue work in the Subcommittee.

Mr. LoMonte withdrew his motion for a vote. 

Ms. Semo asked if the Subcommittee was ready to move on to the next recommendation.

Mr. Mulvey asked to discuss SR-7, which he said would elicit less conversation, before SR-5, which would elicit more. 

Mr. Mulvey presented SR-7, proposing extension of FOIA-like procedures to certain administrative agencies within the legislative and judicial branches but not to individual lawmakers or judges. Mr. Mulvey traced SR-7 to prior Committee work recommending consideration of FOIA like rules for legislative components and noted the current draft would apply to administrative agencies.

Mr. Baron praised the proposal and suggested a footnote listing additional, less prominent legislative agencies.

Mr. Mulvey noted openness to such input. 

Ms. Semo asked if there were further questions; hearing none she called for a motion.

The text of the recommendation read: “Congress should create new, FOIA-like disclosure laws to ensure public access to records controlled by legislative and judicial branch agencies.”

Action item: Mr. Peltz-Steele moved for a vote on SR-7. Ms. Hempowicz seconded. The motion carried with 14-0, with Mr. Glendening abstaining, and two members absent.

Ms. Mitchell noted impending departures of two members, which would not be an issue for voting, and that she would monitor the quorum. 

Mr. Mulvey noted that a vote on SR-5 was unlikely due to lack of time and the need for fuller discussion. He noted SR-5’s three main points—reaffirming FOIA’s de novo standard, specifying courts’ remedial authority, and reinforcing injury-in-fact standing when an agency fails to comply with the statute.

Mr. Peltz- Steele asked about standing issues, and if it had been a problem to date?

Mr. Mulvey noted that while standard FOIA denials remain relatively stable in the D.C. Circuit, there is growing judicial skepticism regarding policy-and-practice or reading-room claims. He noted a case in the Sixth Circuit where a district court required proof of more than just a procedural injury, warning that without congressional reaffirmation, judicial review under FOIA could be weakened.

Ms. Brock noted that Congress is often reluctant to enact legislative changes when administrative solutions are available. She suggested that OIP could address these concerns with improved training and new policies.

Mr. Baron expressed skepticism regarding the need for a recommendation on this point, noting that de novo review is already a straightforward legal standard. He suggested that the real issue was one of agency deference, noting that after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in 2024, stripping agencies of their power to interpret ambiguous laws, it remains unclear if mandatory de novo review would be different from the current system of limited deference, particularly with national security exemptions. He noted some of the proposed recommendations might be obscure and not rising to the level of a Committee recommendation to Congress.

Ms. Mitchell provided a definition of de novo, explaining it as reviewing a case anew without deference to prior agency decisions. 

Mr. Mulvey noted extensive academic literature that explains how courts shirk their de novo responsibilities when it comes to evaluating agencies, particularly under Exemptions 1 and 3. 

Ms. Semo and Mr. Mulvey agreed to continue the discussion on SR-5 at a later meeting or via Subcommittee work.

Ms. Semo transitioned to the public comment period.      

Public Comments 

Ms. Semo reminded attendees that oral comments would be recorded and posted with the meeting transcript and available via the National Archives YouTube channel.

Ms. Mitchell noted procedures for submitting written or oral public comments and invited participants to raise their hands if they wished to speak. She confirmed that no substantive chat comments required reading into the record. She read out loud the list of legislative agencies that Mr. Baron had shared via text: “Architect of the Capitol; Congressional Budget Office; Copyright Office; Government Accountability Office; Government Publishing Office; Library of Congress; Congressional Research Service; Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; Open World Leadership Center; Stennis Center for Public Service; U.S. Botanic Garden; U.S. Capitol Police; U.S. Capitol Visitor Center; U.S. House of Representatives; U.S. Senate.”

Mr Baron noted that this list came from one statute, that legislative branch components are different in different pieces of legislation, and that the Subcommittee would check to see if other statutes mention other agencies.

Ms. Semo asked if there were any final questions. Hearing none, she reminded members the next full Committee meeting would be Thursday, June 11, 2026, noted appreciation for Subcommittee chairs and participants, and adjourned the meeting at 12:49 p.m.

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete on May 29, 2026. 

/s/ Kirsten B. Mitchell

Kirsten B. Mitchell

Designated Federal Officer,

2024-2026 Term 

/s/ Alina M. Semo

Alina M. Semo

Chairperson,

2024-2026 Term