Judicial Watch • Obama Administration

Obama Administration Archives | Judicial Watch

Grassroots Public Interest Groups Seek Court Permission to Intervene to Defend Florida Clean-up Efforts:  ‘…not only are the State of Florida’s list maintenance activities valid, proper, and timely, but… they are also required under federal law.’

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Motion for Intervention with its client True the Vote to defend the State of Florida’s efforts to clean up voter registration lists against an Obama administration lawsuit (The United States of America v. State of Florida and Ken Detzner (No. 4:12-cv-285)).

Florida initiated a systematic effort to remove ineligible voters from its voter registration lists after Judicial Watch filed a letter of inquiry with Florida election officials on February 6, 2012.

Judicial Watch alerted the State of Florida that failure to maintain clean voter registration lists violates Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). In response to Florida’s efforts to comply with the NVRA, the Obama administration filed a lawsuit on June 12, 2012, asking a federal court to enjoin the state from continuing its purge of illegal voters.

According to Judicial Watch’s motion, filed jointly with Judicial Watch client True the Vote on June 26, 2012, with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division:

[Judicial Watch and True the Vote] seek to enter this lawsuit in order to demonstrate that, not only are the State of Florida’s list maintenance activities valid, proper, and timely, but that they also are required under federal law.  Intervention will ensure that the organizational interests of Proposed Intervener True the Vote and the rights and interest of the members of Proposed Intervener Judicial Watch, Inc. are adequately protected and preserved.

As reported by The Associated Press, the State of Florida ordered the removal of 53,000 dead voters from its lists while identifying an additional 2,700 non-citizens registered to vote. Press reports suggest the number of non-citizen voters in the state could be as high as 180,000.

Judicial Watch’s actions in Florida are part of its 2012 Election Integrity Project. According to a comprehensive Judicial Watch investigation, in addition to Florida and Indiana, a number of other states also appear to have problems with inaccurate voter registration lists, including: Mississippi, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Alabama, and California. Judicial Watch has put election officials on notice in these states that they must maintain accurate voter registration lists consistent with Section 8 of the NVRA or face litigation to enforce the federal law.

On June 11, 2012, Judicial Watch (along with co-plaintiff True the Vote) filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Indiana for failure to comply with voter list maintenance provisions of the NVRA.  J. Christian Adams, a former civil rights attorney with the Department of Justice, is of counsel to the groups on these legal actions.  The groups are also represented in Florida by the firm, Radey, Thomas, Yon & Clark.

“The Obama Justice Department is evidently hostile to the idea of clean and fair elections,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is shameful that the Justice Department is now in court trying to stop Florida from fulfilling its legal obligation to remove non-citizen, ineligible voters from the voting rolls.  We look forward to defending the voting rights of our supporters, the rule of law, and election integrity from an unprecedented attack from this politicized Justice Department.”

“According to polls, most Americans agree that Florida should be making efforts to ensure people who are not eligible to vote are kept off of the voter registration rolls. Not only is this common sense, it is what the law requires. It’s disappointing that the Justice Department is more interested in taking extreme legal positions than protecting the integrity of the 2012 elections,” said True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht.

A recent report by non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) published in February 2012 indicates that approximately 24 million active voter registrations in states across the country – or one out of every eight registrations – are either no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.

Previous Documents Contradict Sworn Testimony by Obama Official that Political Appointees Were Not Involved in Decision to Drop Voter Intimidation Lawsuit

Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC — August 11, 2011Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that a federal court rejected a claim of the attorney work product doctrine by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for documents prepared after the government dismissed its case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense on May 15, 2009, and ordered the agency to provide better justification for withholding those documents related to the aftermath of its decision to drop its complaint against several members of the New Black Panther Party who were accused of engaging in voter intimidation during the 2008 presidential campaign. The ruling came in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 10-851(RBW)).In his August 4, 2011, decision, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected the Obama Justice Department’s arguments that documents prepared after the government dismissed its case (against the New Black Panther Party on May 15, 2009) could be withheld under the “attorney work product privilege” exemption. Judge Walton explained:

Although an injunction remains in place in the New Black Panther Party case…the filing of the motion for voluntary dismissal largely marked the end of the litigation. As such, the documents prepared subsequent to that event were not prepared in contemplation of litigation and are thus outside the scope of the work-product privilege.

Because the case had essentially ended on May 15, 2009, Judge Walton found that “it is difficult to see how” the 24 documents created after May 15, 2009, “were prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation, which is the testing question the Court must answer in evaluating the DOJ’s work-product claim.” Although Judge Walton found that the DOJ improperly withheld the 24 documents under the attorney work product doctrine, Judge Walton concluded that the documents were properly withheld under the deliberative process privilege, an entirely discretionary claim of exemption.Yet, Judge Walton also found that the DOJ failed to satisfy its burden of showing that the 24 documents may be withheld in their entirety. Under the deliberative process privilege, the DOJ may only withhold information that is “predecisional and deliberative.” Judge Walton explained:

As it stands now, the description of the DOJ’s segregation efforts is too general for the Court, and the plaintiff, to evaluate whether any factual material in these documents is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the deliberative material and would thus permit the DOJ to withhold the documents in their entirety.

Therefore, Judge Walton provided the DOJ a second chance to satisfy its burden by submitting “a renewed motion for summary judgment accompanied by a declaration or other documentation that solely addresses the segregability issue.” If the DOJ fails to “provide adequate detail regarding why these documents cannot be segregated, the DOJ will be required to disclose the non-exempt portions to the plaintiff.”DOJ’s renewed motion for summary judgment is due September 30, 2011. Judge Walton hopes to rule by February 3, 2012.According to a Justice Department document previously produced to Judicial Watch, top political appointees at the DOJ were involved in the decision to dismiss its voting rights case against the New Black Panther Party, including Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, the third highest ranking official at the Obama Justice Department. Attorney General Eric Holder also received “an update on a planned course of action in the NBPP” from Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, dated May 12, 2009, just three days before the case was dismissed, according to a Vaughn index uncovered by Judicial Watch. A Vaughn index describes documents being withheld from disclosure under FOIA and the basis for the withholdings.Previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, which include descriptions of internal DOJ email correspondence, directly contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision.“The Obama Justice Department is going to extraordinary lengths to make sure no more details emerge regarding the Black Panther scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We already know the Obama administration’s claim that political appointees were not involved in this decision is patently false. And now Justice Department officials continue to fight tooth and nail to stonewall the release of additional information. What else do they have to hide? This new court ruling means we may pry loose some additional information on this voter intimidation scandal.”

White House Emails Detail anti Fox Bias inside Obama White House: “I’m putting some dead fish in the fox cubby — just cause” “[FNC Anchor] Bret Baier…is a lunatic”

Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC — July 14, 2011
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Obama Department of Treasury showing that the Obama administration, contrary to its repeated denials, attempted to exclude the Fox News Channel (FNC) from a round of interviews with Treasury’s “Executive Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The documents, which include email exchanges within the Department of the Treasury and between Treasury and White House staff, also provide colorful evidence of an anti-Fox News bias within the Obama White House.The documents, obtained last week by Judicial Watch pursuant to an October, 28, 2009, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, concern a series of interviews with Feinberg, who served as the Special Master for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Executive Compensation, on October 22, 2009, organized by the Treasury Department. According to press reports, the Fox News Channel was specifically excluded from joining the pool of reporters which precipitated a backlash among the networks and a reversal by the Obama Treasury Department.
According to The New York Times: “Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Thursday [October 22, 2009] to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a ‘pool’ camera crew…”. Fox News Channel’s James Rosen reported this backlash forced the Obama administration to reconsider its position on the matter: “The Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV news network consulted and decided that none of them would interview Feinberg unless Fox was included, and the administration relented…,” reported Rosen. Ultimately, after other media representatives objected, Fox News Channel was allowed to participate in the interviews.The Treasury Department’s official response, as detailed in back-and-forth emails uncovered by Judicial Watch, included a clear denial of any such plot to exclude Fox News from the interviews: “There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing.” Moreover, in an October 23, 2009 email to New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg, Jake Siewart, Counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, repeated the denial that there was an effort to exclude Fox News Channel: “Call me today on your Fox-Treasury report,” Siewart wrote. “Not true that there was an ‘effort to exclude’ Fox.”However, despite this public position, internal Obama administration emails obtained by Judicial Watch provide evidence that FNC was specifically singled out for exclusion. According to one October 22, 2009, email exchange between Dag Vega, Director of Broadcast Media on the White House staff, to Jenni LeCompte, then-Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs in the Treasury Department, Vega informs LeCompte that “…we’d prefer if you skip Fox please.”Regarding general anti-FNC bias within the Obama White House in an October 23, 2009, email exchange between Jennifer Psaki, Deputy White House Communications Director and LeCompte, Psaki writes, “I am putting some dead fish in the fox cubby – just cause”. In an email on the night of October 22, 2009, commenting on a report by Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier noting the exclusion of the network from the pool, Psaki writes to Compte and fellow White House colleagues, “…brett baier just did a stupid piece on it — but he is a lunatic”.Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest bluntly described the White House’s position on Fox News Channel in an October 23, 2009, email to LeCompte: “We’ve demonstrated our willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant interviews…”The Treasury Department blacked out a key email regarding its refusal to make available Treasury Secretary Geithner for an interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.“The Obama administration seems to have lied about its attempt to exclude Fox News Channel from access to an interview with the ‘pay czar.’ These documents show there is a pervasive anti-Fox bias in the Obama White House,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The juvenile Mafioso-talk in these emails has no place in any White House. For the Obama administration to purposely exclude a major news organization from access to information has troubling First Amendment implications.”

Local Immigration Officials Given Wide Latitude to Dismiss Illegal Immigration Deportation Cases, Including For Those Involving Violent Crimes

Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC — July 7, 2011Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Obama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) showing that DHS officials misled Congress and the public about the scope of an immigration enforcement policy change that gave wide latitude to local immigration officials to dismiss illegal alien deportation cases. According to the documents, obtained pursuant to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, immigration officials sought the dismissal of charges against a wide range of illegal alien criminals, including those convicted of violent crimes, despite claims by the Obama administration to the contrary.The documents concern the response by Houston immigration officials to a June 30, 2010, memo from John Morton, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to all ICE employees instructing local immigration officials to use their discretion in “prioritizing” illegal immigration deportation cases. This new policy resulted in the dismissal of hundreds of immigration cases and an overall 40% increase in deportation dismissals with the City of Houston taking a particularly aggressive approach to the policy’s implementation.In response to calls by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for more information regarding this new deportation policy, DHS spokesman Matt Chandler said, “The idea that DHS is engaged in ‘selective enforcement’ couldn’t be further from the truth.” However, the documents uncovered by Judicial Watch show that Houston immigration officials moved quickly to implement a broad interpretation of Morton’s memo, earning praise from ICE agency headquarters:

  • Email from Gary Goldman, Chief Counsel for Houston ICE to Riah Ramlogan, ICE’s Director of Field Operations, August 6, 2010:

    I was uncertain whether to write you this short note but I am comfortable in doing so.In brief, I will push every policy that was disseminated to the Chief Counsels to my staff…effectively and quickly. I understand the responsibilities of my position and I take great pride in my work. I will…ensure each attorney is fully knowledgeable and compliant with policies regarding courtroom expectations, written work, humanitarian cases, reporting requirements, etc.

    (Ramlogan’s response to Goldman’s efforts, August 10, 2010: “Outstanding, Gary.”)

  • Memo from Goldman to all attorneys, Office of Chief Counsel, August 12, 2010 (ultimately rescinded per the instruction of ICE headquarters):

    Beginning immediately on all duty files and court files every attorney must determine whether the case may be amenable to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to guidelines outlined in the June 30, 2010 Assistant Secretary John Morton memorandum…If the crime is remote in time and the alien has a substantial number of equities, all factors will be weighed to determine if an exercise of PD [prosecutorial discretion] is appropriate.

  • Memo from Goldman to all attorneys, Office of Chief Counsel, August 16, 2010 (ultimately rescinded per the instruction of ICE headquarters):

    ICE Senior Leadership does not want their attorneys to merely fill a seat in immigration court and blindly prosecute every case handed to them. The current administration wants attorneys of greater sophistication, independence and complexity in decision making…

Moreover, despite the claims of immigration officials, ICE attorneys sought to block deportation proceeding for illegal aliens with violent crime offenses. A spreadsheet obtained by Judicial Watch lists the specific violent crimes that immigration officials were prepared to overlook. They include: sexual assault, solicitation of murder, aggravated assault, assaulting a police officer, and kidnapping, as well as numerous drug charges.Following the press coverage of the memo, which resulted in widespread outrage, immigration officials sought to contain the damage by narrowing the scope of the policy change:

  • An email from Raphael Choi, Chief Counsel for Arlington ICE to Gary Goldman, August 18, 2010:

    …in-house I’m way behind. We continue to review cases piecemeal. The problem is every time I’m about to wield a blunt instrument to our docket, some case shows up in the press that gives me pause. I think its given Riah pause too.

  • Letter from Ramlogan to Goldman on the day the Houston Chronicle exposed the new policy on deportations, August 25, 2010:

    I am concerned that your interpretation of the memorandum, although well-intentioned, could create a gap in basic immigration enforcement. Your approach that our attorneys should only litigate cases within the agency’s highest priorities is not an accurate interpretation of the Assistant Secretary’s guidance and is not consistent with agency policy…please immediately rescind your memoranda.

    (Note: Ramlogan had been provided a copy of Goldman’s memo on August 10, 2010 but provided no comment until the day the Houston Chronicle story was published.)

On June 17, 2011, John Morton sent another memo to all field officers, special agents and to the chief counsel further defining the term “prosecutorial discretion.” “In basic terms, prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual,” Morton writes. Critics point out that this is precisely the type of “selective enforcement” the DHS has denied fostering with its new deportation policy.“These documents show that the Obama administration is implementing ‘stealth amnesty,’ which is an end-run around the rule of law and Congress.” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration doesn’t seem to care about its constitutional responsibility to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ by pushing the selective enforcement of immigration laws. And they are thumbing their noses at Congress and the American people by stonewalling information requests and lying to cover up their stealth amnesty scheme. Congress should initiate a full investigation to get to the truth of the matter. The lawlessness must stop.”

Documents Uncovered

Grant Recipient, Affordable Housing Centers of America, Criticized in 2010 Inspector General Report for Misappropriating Federal Funds

Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC — July 5, 2011

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that that the Obama Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has issued a $79,819 grant to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)-offshoot Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA) in apparent violation of an ACORN funding ban passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in 2009. Moreover, this grant was provided to the organization less than a year after ACORN/AHCOA was criticized by HUD’s inspector general in two separate investigations for misappropriating funds from federal grants.
On October 1, 2009, President Obama signed into law legislation known as the Defund ACORN Act that effectively prohibited the federal government from funding “ACORN and any ACORN-related affiliate.” Following a lawsuit filed by ACORN challenging the law, which passed both branches of Congress by wide margins, the federal courts in New York upheld the constitutionality of the funding ban on August 13, 2010. The Supreme Court last month refused to hear ACORN’s appeal of this funding ban.But a Judicial Watch investigation revealed that, on March 1, 2011, HUD announced a $79,819 federal grant to AHCOA to “educate the public and housing providers about their rights and obligations under federal, state, and local fair housing laws.”Although the Government Accountability Office issued a controversial advisory opinion in September 2010 stating that AHCOA is a separate entity from ACORN and is therefore not subject to the funding ban, the government’s website listing federal expenditures identifies the organization receiving the $79,819 grant as “ACORN Housing Corporation Inc,” and lists ACORN’s New Orleans, Louisiana, address. Moreover AHCOA maintains the same board of directors, executive director and offices as its predecessor, ACORN Housing Corporation, Inc.Federal investigators have documented fraudulent activity on the part of ACORN Housing/AHCOA. For example, according to a September 21, 2010, HUD inspector general report, which notes that ACORN Housing is “now operating as Affordable Housing Centers of America,” the organization misappropriated funds from a $3,252,399 federal grant. The inspector general concluded that ACORN Housing/AHCOA had charged salary expenses to the HUD grant that “were not fully supported.” The organization also continued to pay its counselors even after they were terminated, did not meet federal procurement standards and allegedly destroyed documents to conceal the fraudulent activity.The inspector general articulated a number of benchmarks that must first be met by AHCOA before the organization could begin receiving any future federal funds, including reimbursing the government the misappropriated funds.A separate November 8, 2010, HUD inspector general report documented additional fraudulent activity by ACORN/AHCOA. The ACORN group “inappropriately expended more than $3.2 million from its fiscal years 2004 and 2005 grants for the elimination of lead poisoning in its housing program,” the report concluded. The misappropriation included the use of funds “not identified in its grant application’s detailed budgets,” including “campaign services” and “grant fundraising activities.”In November 2007, then-Senator Obama addressed ACORN and thanked the organization for its work. While Obama has denied that he had any involvement with ACORN other than some legal work he did for them in 1995, his statements in 2007 suggest otherwise. In Senator Obama’s own words, “I’ve been fighting alongside Acorn [sic] on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, Acorn [sic] was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” Barack Obama served as the Illinois executive director of Project Vote in 1992. His campaign paid more than $800,000 to an ACORN organization to help “get out the vote” in his successful primary campaign against then-Sen. Hillary Clinton.The New York Times reported in 2009 that “perhaps no administration official has had more interaction with Acorn [sic] than [Shaun] Donovan”, who is Obama’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The Times notes that Donovan “worked closely” with ACORN’s politically-powerful New York housing affiliate when he was a New York City housing official.“President Obama is truly the president from ACORN. So it is no surprise that his administration would continue to dole out tax dollars to an ACORN affiliate with a documented history of fraudulent activity,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This is another instance of President Obama’s appointees stubbornly refusing to follow the law and deny this crooked organization funds. Is the Obama gang ensuring that ACORN is around to help them again in 2012?”(This year, HUD provided $40 million in grants to 108 “fair housing” organizations, representing a $13.2 million increase over the 2010 award. According to HUD’s press announcement, the general purpose of these grants is “to educate the public and combat housing and lending discrimination.”)

Obama Administration Reportedly Implementing Policies that Grant Legal Status to Illegal Aliens without Approval of Congress

Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC — March 29, 2011

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the Obama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to obtain records detailing the Obama administration’s alleged plan to grant legal status to illegal aliens without going through Congress, a strategy commonly known as “stealth amnesty.” Specifically, Judicial Watch is investigating an alleged plan by the Obama administration to suspend deportations of illegal aliens who are in the country unlawfully (Judicial Watch v. US Department of Homeland Security (No. 11-604) and Judicial Watch v. US Department of Homeland Security (No. 11-606)).
On July 2, 2010, Judicial Watch sent a FOIA request to DHS seeking the following information: “Any and all records of communications between the Department of Homeland Security and any of the following entities, concerning ‘deferred action’ or ‘parole’ to suspend removal proceedings against a particular individual or group of individuals for a specific timeframe; as well as records of communications concerning ‘selective reprieve’ to the segment of the population holding expired visas: The White House; The Executive Office of the President; Any third parties.” Judicial Watch sought internal DHS communications regarding “deferred action or parole” as well.On August 30, 2010, Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to DHS seeking the following information:

  • Any and all records of, and/or records concerning, Department of Homeland Security briefings regarding a systematic review of pending immigration cases against suspected illegal immigrants in Houston, Texas.
  • Any and all records of general guidelines issued to Department of Homeland Security attorneys, allowing dismissal of pending immigration cases.
  • Any and all records detailing the determination and implementation of a systematic review of pending immigration cases against suspected illegal immigrants in Houston, Texas.
  • Any and all correspondence with non-governmental organizations…concerning the process for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to give consideration of possible dismissal of pending immigration cases.

DHS acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests. However, to date, the agency has failed to provide responsive documents. DHS has not indicated when a response will be forthcoming. In both cases, DHS has failed to respond in the statutory allotted timeframe precipitating Judicial Watch’s lawsuits. (Reporting by The Associated Press suggests that DHS political appointees have improperly delayed FOIA requests on politically sensitive topics.)The Obama administration has been heavily criticized for their alleged plan to bypass Congress and enact “stealth amnesty.” In June 2010, the press uncovered a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service “draft” memo that outlined ways to grant legalization to illegal aliens without going through Congress.The August 24, 2010, edition of The Houston Chronicle reported the government had already put one such plan into action: “The Department of Homeland Security is systematically reviewing thousands of pending immigration cases and moving to dismiss those filed against suspected illegal immigrants who have no serious criminal records…Culling the immigration court system dockets of noncriminals started in earnest in Houston about a month ago and has stunned local immigration attorneys, who have reported coming to court anticipating clients’ deportations only to learn that the government was dismissing the cases.”Despite evidence to the contrary, Obama claimed on Monday, March 28, 2011, that he does not have a plan in place to suspend deportations. “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president,” Obama said.“President Obama may deny he has a plan to suspend deportations but the experience of immigration attorneys in Houston suggests otherwise. That’s why it’s critical that Homeland Security follows the open records FOIA law and turns over these records. The American people need to know if the Obama administration has decided to flout our immigration laws and enact stealth amnesty for illegal aliens who are unlawfully here in the United States. The stonewalling by the ‘transparent’ Obama administration suggests it has something to hide,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC — March 14, 2011

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton will provide testimony to this week’s Senate and House hearings on government compliance to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). He will, on behalf of the government watchdog Judicial Watch, focus on whether the Obama administration’s transparency promises are being kept. Judicial Watch has filed over 325 Freedom of Information requests with the Obama administration, and has been forced to file 44 lawsuits to force the Obama administration to comply with the Freedom of Information Act.
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing is entitled “The Freedom of Information Act: Ensuring Transparency and Accountability in the Digital Age.” Senator Patrick Joseph Leahy (D-VT) is Chairman of the Committee, Senator Charles E. “Chuck” Grassley (R-IA) is the Ranking Minority Member. To view the Senate Judiciary proceedings Tuesday live online, click here: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/

  • When: Tuesday, March 15, 201110:15 AM ET
  • Where: Dirksen Senate Office BuildingRoom 226

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing is entitled “The Freedom of Information Act: Crowd-Sourcing Government Oversight.” Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is Chairman of the Committee, Congressman Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD) is the Ranking Minority Member. To view the House Government Reform and Oversight proceedings Thursday live online click here: http://oversight.house.gov/

  • When: Thursday, March 17, 20119:30 AM ET
  • Where: Rayburn House BuildingRoom 2154

The hearings are being held as part of Sunshine Week 2011 — March 13-19. Sunshine Week is a national initiative by the news media, nonprofits and other organizations interested in promoting government transparency.

Sign Up for Updates!