CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Leonard Weinglass, Esq., Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Defendants-Appellees, 506 F. App'x 547

MEMORANDUM The district court erred in granting

summary judgment without requiring the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to submit a classified declaration for in camera review. The government’s unclassified declaration failed to provide “reasonably specific detail” that would show why merely acknowledging the existence of records might reveal intelligence sources or methods, or affect our foreign relations. See Berman v. CIA, 501 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2007); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), (8); 50 U.S.C. § 403-1(0(1); Exec. Order No. 13,526, §§ 1.1, 1.4(c), (d), 75 Fed.Reg. 707 (Jan. 5, 2010). If this were sufficient to support

summary judgment, the government would be free to issue a Glomar response in practically every case involving satellite images and records, as well as many other surveillance activities. On remand, the agency shall provide a classified declaration for in camera review by the district court, as it offered at oral argument. The court may then reconsider its

summary judgment ruling in light of the information so provided. REVERSED AND REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.