Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) regularly takes the government to court to defend journalists, challenge excessive secrecy, and ensure that government records remain exactly what they are: public property. We’ve also filed or joined in dozens of amicus briefs — many more than we can list here — but below is a summary of the suits we’ve filed or in which we’ve intervened, starting with the most recent:
Fighting Trump’s efforts to keep his records secret
Case: 1:26-cv-01402
Filed: April 24, 2026
Who we’re suing: President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, the Executive Office of the President, the White House Office, Chief of Staff Susan Wiles, the National Archives and Records Administration, and acting Archivist Edward Forst
What we’re asking for: To ensure that the White House and federal agencies abide by the Presidential Records Act, so the most important papers in government become subject to the Freedom of Information Act five years after a presidential term ends.
Counsel and co-plaintiff: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Outcome: Ongoing
Uncovering the government’s data-sharing agreements
Case: 1:26-cv-00969
Filed: March 20, 2026
Who we’re suing: The Office of Management and Budget
What we’re asking for: The disclosure of administration blueprints that aim to eviscerate privacy protections by drastically expanding data-sharing across federal agencies, states, and third parties.
Counsel: Free Information Group
Outcome: Ongoing
Probing judicial secrecy around forced source disclosure
Case: 24-5050
Motion to intervene filed: Dec. 2, 2025
Why we intervened: The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a ruling requiring investigative journalist Catherine Herridge to disclose the sources for her reporting on scientist Yanping Chen’s alleged ties to the Chinese military while an online college Chen founded received federal funds. The ruling was informed by documents about the FBI’s investigation of Chen that were filed under seal, even though the investigation was over and the documents weren’t classified, and by a partially closed hearing. We intervened to unseal the documents and hearing transcript, to find out whether the damages Chen claimed to have suffered were because of alleged leaks to Herridge or because of the outcome of the government investigation she reported on.
Counsel: Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
Outcome: The appellate court sent the unsealing question back to the lower court and ruled FPF’s motion to intervene moot.
Enforcing congressional oversight
Case: 1:25-cv-03883
Filed: Nov. 6, 2025
Who we’re suing: Immigration and Customs Enforcement
What we’re asking for: All communications about congressional efforts to visit ICE detention facilities, which ICE has consistently stymied as the agency attempts to evade oversight.
Counsel: Free Information Group
Outcome: Ongoing
Medicaid data and immigration enforcement
Case: 1:25-cv-03387
Filed: Sept. 24, 2025
Who we sued: Department of Homeland Security and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
What we asked for: An unprecedented agreement granting Immigration and Customs Enforcement access to the personal data of 79 million Medicaid enrollees. FPF joined 404 Media in this successful effort to pry loose the agreement.
Counsel: Matthew Cate
Outcome: Obtained the ICE-Medicaid agreement
Exposing attempts to intimidate journalists from reporting on ICE
Case: 1:25-cv-03385
Filed: Sept. 24, 2025
Who we’re suing: Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice
What we’re asking for: Records regarding the administration’s threat to prosecute CNN for reporting on the ICEBlock app.
Counsel: Matthew Cate
Outcome: Ongoing
Protecting investigative reporting
Case: 1:25-cv-03386
Filed: Sept. 24, 2025
Who we’re suing: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence
What we’re asking for: The basis for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s claims that a national security reporter’s work was tantamount to harassment, to challenge attempts to smear journalists.
Counsel: Matthew Cate
Outcome: Ongoing
Foreign influence and accountability
Case: 1:25-cv-02432
Filed: July 28, 2025
Who we’re suing: Department of Justice
What we’re asking for: The legality of the administration accepting a $400 million plane from Qatar; specifically seeking the DOJ memorandum that deemed the gift “permissible” as long as it was transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation at the end of his current term.
Counsel: American Oversight
Outcome: Ongoing
Challenging journalist visa revocations
Case: 1:25-cv-01801
Filed: June 9, 2025
Who we’re suing: The Department of State
What we’re asking for: Relevant State Department records to fight back against the detention and visa revocation of student journalists without evidence of wrongdoing.
Counsel: Loevy & Loevy
Outcome: Ongoing
Fighting an order gagging the press
Case: 1:23-cv-00041
Motion to intervene filed: Feb. 28, 2023
Why we intervened: The plaintiff in this case, Jacob Doe, a former student at the University of North Carolina who was accused of sexual misconduct and expelled, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order under seal, asking the court to prohibit the university system, its students and employees, and members of the press from publishing any information about him, which the court granted. We intervened to unseal Doe’s motion and related filings allowing it to be sealed to uncover why the court had agreed to grant a potentially unconstitutional gag order.
Counsel: ACLU of North Carolina
Outcome: Doe withdrew his request for a temporary restraining order, telling the court that he had resolved the issues raised with the university. The motion to intervene was ruled moot.
Demanding footage of journalists’ arrests
Case: 23CV00356
Petition filed: Jan. 24, 2023
Why we petitioned the court: Two Asheville, North Carolina, journalists were arrested for trespassing while documenting a controversial Christmas night eviction of a homeless encampment. FPF petitioned the court for a full public release of body camera footage of their arrests.
Counsel: ACLU of North Carolina
Outcome: Asheville released the footage, which showed, among other things, a police officer suggesting his colleagues arrest journalists “because they’re videotaping” — proving the reporters were singled out for doing their jobs.
Uncovering surveillance of journalists
Case: 1:17-cv-09343
Filed: Nov. 29, 2017
Who we sued: Department of Justice, National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence
What we asked for: Records concerning restrictions on government surveillance of news media, including statutory or regulatory limitations, to clarify the precise limitations on governmental surveillance powers.
Counsel: Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
Outcome: The court forced the DOJ to undo certain redactions, and the government agreed to pay FPF and the Knight Institute $45,000 to cover attorneys’ fees. In addition, the DOJ released its previously secret rules for targeting journalists with FISA court orders.
Exposing the Obama administration’s campaign against FOIA reform
Case: 3:15-cv-05709
Filed: Dec. 14, 2015
Who we sued: Department of Justice
What we asked for: Communications between the Obama DOJ and members of Congress who sponsored Freedom of Information Act reform bills introduced in 2014 and 2015, after we received an anonymous tip that the department was trying to halt the modest and uncontroversial FOIA reform bills of 2014 that were supported by huge majorities in both houses of Congress.
Counsel: Marcia Hofmann and Victoria Baranetsky
Outcome: We received documents showing that the Obama administration aggressively lobbied behind the scenes in 2014 to kill FOIA reform. After they were published in Vice News, the Obama administration withdrew its objections, and the bill quickly passed.
Investigating the secret surveillance rules of journalists
Case: 4:15-cv-03503
Filed: July 30, 2015
Who we sued: Department of Justice
What we asked for: Records concerning the secret rules by which the Federal Bureau of Investigation issues “national security letters” to investigate members of the media.
Counsel: Marcia Hofmann and Victoria Baranetsky
Outcome: We received documents showing that DOJ’s media guidelines, which set a high bar for when the DOJ and FBI could conduct surveillance on a journalist, did not apply to national security surveillance tools like secret “national security letters.” While we did not win the release of the actual rules, they were leaked by a whistleblower the same year.
