Louise Trauma Center LLC v. USCIS

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 14, 2025
• Docket: 24-1768
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1768 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 11

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1768

LOUISE TRAUMA CENTER LLC,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-02846-RDB)

Argued: March 20, 2025 Decided: August 14, 2025

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and HARRIS and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Reversed by published opinion. Judge Berner wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Diaz and Judge Harris joined.

ARGUED: David Laundon Cleveland, Sr., LAW OFFICE OF DAVID CLEVELAND, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Ariana Wright Arnold, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1768 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 11

BERNER, Circuit Judge:

Louise Trauma Center submitted multiple Freedom of Information Act requests to

the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, seeking records related to the

training and performance of asylum officers. For more than two years, the agency failed to

make a determination on these requests. Only after Louise Trauma Center filed this lawsuit

did the agency produce any requested records. Even then, many of the records were heavily

redacted. Shortly after producing the redacted records, the agency moved to dismiss,

arguing that the suit was rendered moot because it had produced the relevant records. The

agency also argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Louise Trauma Center

had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The district court agreed and dismissed

the case.

We reverse. Louise Trama Center had constructively exhausted its administrative

remedies because the agency failed to respond to the Freedom of Information Act requests

within the statutory time limits. The agency’s belated production of the redacted documents

did not render Louise Trauma Center’s case moot, nor was Louise Trauma Center required

to exhaust new administrative remedies before challenging the agency’s redactions.

I. Background

Between January 5, 2021, and June 30, 2021, Louise Trauma Center LLC submitted

four requests under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) to the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). These requests sought records related to

the training and performance of USCIS’s asylum officers. Approximately one week after

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1768 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 3 of 11

receiving each FOIA request from Louise Trauma Center, USCIS responded with a

boilerplate letter acknowledging receipt. Each letter provided a case number for the

request, briefly explained USCIS’s FOIA process, and notified Louise Trauma Center that

the request would be reviewed under USCIS’s process for “complex” FOIA requests.

After receiving these initial response letters, Louise Trauma Center received no

further communication from USCIS. Over two years after submitting its last request,

Louise Trauma Center filed suit against USCIS in the United States District Court for the

District of Maryland, alleging that it had the right under FOIA to the entirety of the records

it requested and that USCIS had no legal basis for failing to produce them. Louise Trauma

Center sought prompt production of the records and a declaration that USCIS’s failure to

produce them in a timely manner violated FOIA.

Only after Louise Trauma Center filed suit did USCIS respond to the four FOIA

requests. USCIS produced 2,756 pages of documents that it deemed responsive. Of those,

more than a third of the pages contained redactions, some redacted entirely. USCIS notified

Louise Trama Center that it had redacted the records pursuant to certain exemptions

permitted by FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).

After receiving the documents, Louise Trauma Center sent USCIS several

objections to the redactions, asserting that the production was incomplete. USCIS

responded by providing notice to Louise Trauma Center of its right to file an administrative

appeal. Shortly after USCIS produced the redacted documents and two days after the

agency notified Louise Trauma Center of its administrative appeal right, USCIS moved to

dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1768 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 4 of 11

Procedure 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The district court granted USCIS’s motion, reasoning that the case was moot

because USCIS had produced the requested records. Louise Trauma Ctr., LLC v. USCIS,

No. 23-2846, 2024 WL 3555043, at *4–5 (D. Md. July 26, 2024). The district court also

concluded that Louise Trauma Center’s administrative remedies were not constructively

exhausted, and that Louise Trauma Center would be required to administratively appeal

USCIS’s purportedly improper redactions before it could challenge them in court. Id. at

*5.

II. Analysis

This appeal poses three questions. First, did Louise Trauma Center fail to

constructively exhaust its administrative remedies before filing its lawsuit? Second, did

Louise Trauma Center’s case become moot when USCIS produced the redacted records?

Third, was Louise Trauma Center required to exhaust its administrative remedies on its

claim that USCIS had improperly redacted the records? Because we answer “no” to all

three questions, we reverse the district court’s order granting USCIS’s motion to dismiss.

We address each question in turn.

We review de novo a district court order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint

as moot, Grutzmacher v. Howard Cnty., 851 F.3d 332, 348 (4th Cir. 2017), and for failure

to exhaust administrative remedies, Talbot v. Lucy Corr Nursing Home, 118 F.3d 215, 218

(4th Cir. 1997).

4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1768 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 5 of 11

A. Constructive Administrative Exhaustion

Administrative exhaustion is a well-established doctrine of administrative law,1

which provides “that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury

until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548

U.S. 81, 88–89 (2006) (internal quotations omitted). Ordinarily, before proceeding to

federal court, a FOIA requester must exhaust remedies available through FOIA’s

administrative process. Coleman v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 714 F.3d 816, 823 (4th Cir. 2013).

To prevent agencies from keeping requesters out of court by simply delaying the

administrative process indefinitely, however, FOIA provides that a requester will be

deemed to have constructively exhausted available administrative remedies “if the agency

fails to comply with the applicable time limit provisions.” Id. (quoting 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(a)(6)(C)(i)); see also Khine v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 943 F.3d 959, 966 (D.C.

Cir. 2019) (“FOIA provides that a requester may be treated as if she exhausted the

administrative appeals process where the agency did not provide a timely determination.”).

Once a requester constructively exhausts administrative remedies, the requester may

then file a lawsuit challenging the agency’s failure to respond. Citizens for Resp. & Ethics

1 The district court stated that “a failure to exhaust administrative remedies under FOIA deprives the courts of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Louise Trauma Ctr., 2024 WL 3555043, at *4 (internal quotations omitted). We disagree. An administrative exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional “[o]nly if the statutory text ‘plainly show[s] that Congress imbued a procedural bar with jurisdictional consequences.’” Stewart v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 693, 700 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402, 410 (2015)). FOIA neither expressly requires requesters to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief nor conditions a federal court’s ability to hear a claim on that basis. Thus, FOIA’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional one. 5 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1768 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 6 of 11

in Wash. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 711 F.3d 180, 188–89 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“If the agency

does not adhere to FOIA’s explicit timelines, the ‘penalty’ is that the agency cannot rely

on the administrative exhaustion requirement to keep cases from getting into court.”). This

constructive exhaustion rule applies “even if a request may have been burdensome to the

agency or would have to be delayed because of other requests filed earlier.” Coleman, 714

F.3d at 823 (internal quotation omitted).

USCIS did not adequately respond to Louise Trauma Center’s requests within

FOIA’s prescribed time limit. FOIA requires agencies to notify a requester of their

“determination and the reasons therefor” within twenty business days of receiving a FOIA

request. 2 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i)(I). Louise Trauma Center submitted its FOIA requests

between January 5 and June 30, 2021. The only action that USCIS took in response to the

requests before Louise Trauma Center filed suit two years later was to send boilerplate

acknowledgment letters.

These boilerplate letters do not constitute “determinations” under FOIA. See 5

U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). An adequate agency determination requires, at a minimum, that

the agency: “(i) gather and review the documents; (ii) determine and communicate the

scope of the documents it intends to produce and withhold, and the reasons for withholding

any documents; and (iii) inform the requester that it can appeal whatever portion of the

‘determination’ is adverse.” Khine, 943 F.3d at 966 (quoting Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in

Wash., 711 F.3d at 188). USCIS’s letters met none of these requirements. Instead, USCIS

2 In “unusual circumstances,” FOIA permits agencies to extend this time limit by up to ten business days by written notice to the requester. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). 6 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1768 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 7 of 11

failed to provide a determination to Louise Trauma Center’s requests for well over two

years, exceeding FOIA’s time limit many times over. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).

Because the agency failed to provide its determinations within the requisite time limit, 3

Louise Trauma Center constructively exhausted its administrative remedies for each

request.

B. Mootness

We next turn to whether USCIS’s production of redacted records mooted Louise

Trauma Center’s claims. Pertinent to this inquiry, this court has previously held that “a

challenge to a particular denial of a FOIA request becomes moot if an agency produces the

requested documents.” Reg’l Mgmt. Corp. v. Legal Servs. Corp., 186 F.3d 457, 465 (4th

Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). USCIS contends that this principle controls. The agency

argues that Louise Trauma Center’s case was rendered moot when it produced the

requested records. That many of the produced records were heavily redacted, USCIS

claims, does not change this result.

Had USCIS produced the entirety of the records responsive to Louise Trauma

Center’s requests, we agree that the case would be moot. This court’s decision in Regional

Management Corporation v. Legal Services Corporation is illustrative. There, the plaintiff

submitted multiple FOIA requests seeking records related to an investigation. 186 F.3d at

3 Agencies can remedy a violation of FOIA’s timeliness requirements if they issue a determination on a FOIA request before the requester files suit. See Coleman, 714 F.3d at 820; Pollack v. Dep’t of Just., 49 F.3d 115, 118–19 (4th Cir. 1995). That did not occur here. USCIS did not issue a determination on the FOIA requests until after Louise Trauma Center filed suit. 7 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1768 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 8 of 11

459–60. Initially the agency denied the request. Id. at 460. After the investigation had been

completed, however, the agency produced all the requested records. Id. Although the

agency had fully complied with the plaintiff’s FOIA requests, the plaintiff argued that its

case was not moot because the agency had a policy of violating FOIA’s timeliness

requirements. Id. at 465. This court dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiff’s claim

that the agency had a policy of violating the time limits was not ripe. Id. at 465–66. Thus,

the agency’s production of the responsive documents rendered the case moot. Id.

Unlike the agency in Regional Management Corporation, USCIS did not produce

all the records that Louise Trauma Center requested. In that sense, this case more closely

resembles Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election

Commission. There, as here, the plaintiff filed a FOIA request; the agency failed to respond

in a timely manner; and the plaintiff sued before the agency issued a determination. 711

F.3d at 183. Also as in the case before us, after the requester filed suit the agency produced

some of the responsive records, withheld and redacted parts of others, and moved to

dismiss the lawsuit as moot. Id. at 183–84. The D.C. Circuit rejected that contention,

finding that the plaintiff “not only asserted that the [agency] failed to respond to [the

plaintiff’s] request in a timely fashion, but also raised a substantive challenge to the

agency’s withholding of responsive, non-exempt records.” Id. at 184. Because the plaintiff

sought relief from the agency’s alleged failure to produce the entire record, the case was

not moot. Id.

Here too, Louise Trauma Center continues to raise a justiciable challenge under

FOIA. While USCIS turned over the requested records, they were heavily redacted. Louise

8 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1768 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 9 of 11

Trauma Center alleged that it was entitled under FOIA to all the responsive records and

sought an injunction requiring USCIS to comply fully with those requests. Put simply,

Louise Trauma Center’s case is not moot because USCIS has yet to produce many of the

complete records Louise Trauma Center requested. 4

C. Administrative Exhaustion After Post-Lawsuit Production

Finally, USCIS argues that dismissal is appropriate because Louise Trauma Center

must first exhaust its administrative remedies with respect to its claim that the agency

improperly redacted the records produced. USCIS is mistaken.

As we have explained, Louise Trauma Center constructively exhausted its

administrative remedies because USCIS failed to provide a “determination and the reasons

therefor” within the requisite FOIA time limit. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A). Louise Trauma

Center is not required to jump through further administrative hoops simply because USCIS

produced portions of the responsive records after this lawsuit was filed. See Pollack v.

Dep’t of Just., 49 F.3d 115, 119 (4th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ny . . . administrative exhaustion

requirement [for the agency’s post-lawsuit determinations] was satisfied by the

constructive exhaustion provision in the statute”); Corbett v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 116

F.4th 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2024) (concluding that “once a FOIA suit is properly initiated

based on constructive exhaustion, an agency’s post-lawsuit response does not require

dismissal for failure to exhaust”).

4 The district court did not address whether USCIS met its statutory burden to justify withholding some of the records under FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). We also do not reach that issue here. 9 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1768 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 10 of 11

We decline to adopt USCIS’s proposed rule under which an agency could deprive a

requester—one that has satisfied the administrative exhaustion requirement—of a judicial

remedy in the middle of a proceeding without producing the entirety of the responsive

record. Biear v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 905 F.3d 151, 158 (3d Cir. 2018). Dismissing a requester’s

lawsuit simply because an agency partially complied with its FOIA obligations would

allow administrative agencies to engage in gamesmanship that would fundamentally

undermine the FOIA timeliness requirement. See Coleman, 714 F.3d at 823; Citizens for

Resp. & Ethics in Wash., 711 F.3d at 190 (“[T]he statute does not allow agencies to keep

FOIA requests bottled up for months or years on end while avoiding any judicial

oversight.”). Requiring administrative exhaustion for post-lawsuit agency responses could

provide an incentive for agencies to forgo responding to requests unless and until requesters

file suit. Corbett, 116 F.4th at 1031. Such a rule could also ensnare FOIA requesters in an

administrative quagmire.

That would defeat the very purpose of FOIA. FOIA is grounded in “the fundamental

principle of public access to Government documents.” John Doe Agency v. John Doe

Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 151 (1989). The statute provides a mechanism to obtain “official

information long shielded unnecessarily from public view and attempts to create a

judicially enforceable public right to secure such information from possibly unwilling

official hands.” EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 80 (1973). A critical part of that mechanism is

the right to sue when an agency fails to respond to a FOIA request within the designated

time limit. Enforcing the constructive exhaustion provision in this context is consistent

10 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1768 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 11 of 11

with FOIA’s text and serves the statute’s purpose by incentivizing agencies to respond

within the required time limit.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the district court’s order granting

USCIS’s motion to dismiss.

REVERSED