The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court's summary judgment ruling against retired Marine Captain Rory M. Walsh in his Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of the Navy, according to an unpublished decision filed Jan. 26, 2026.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Smith, Shepherd, and Erickson, issued a brief per curiam opinion that upheld the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota's adverse ruling against Walsh. The appeals court provided minimal analysis, stating it affirmed "for the reasons stated by the district court" after conducting a de novo review of the record and the parties' arguments.
Walsh, identified in court documents as Captain Rory M. Walsh, USMC (Ret.), brought the lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, seeking to compel the Department of the Navy and the United States to release unspecified records. The FOIA, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552, provides the public with a legal mechanism to request access to federal agency records, with certain exemptions for classified information, personal privacy, and other sensitive materials.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, where Judge Eric C. Schulte granted summary judgment in favor of the government defendants. Summary judgment is a procedural ruling that resolves a case without a trial when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Eighth Circuit's decision to affirm without elaboration suggests the appeals court found no error in the district court's analysis of the FOIA request or the government's response. The court cited its own precedent in *Argus Leader Media v. U.S. Department of Agriculture* (8th Cir. 2014), which established the standard of review for FOIA cases on appeal.
FOIA lawsuits typically arise when federal agencies deny requests for records or fail to respond within statutory deadlines. Agencies can withhold records under nine specific exemptions, including those protecting national security information, internal personnel rules, trade secrets, law enforcement records, and personal privacy. Military records often involve complex considerations regarding operational security and personnel privacy.
The brief nature of the Eighth Circuit's opinion, combined with its unpublished status, indicates the court viewed the case as straightforward and unlikely to establish new legal precedent. Unpublished decisions carry less precedential weight than published opinions but remain binding on the parties involved.
The timing of the case reflects the typical progression of federal litigation, with the appeal submitted to the Eighth Circuit on Jan. 21, 2026, and decided within days. This quick turnaround suggests the court found the legal issues well-settled and requiring minimal deliberation.
The Eighth Circuit's jurisdiction encompasses appeals from federal district courts in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The court regularly handles FOIA appeals involving various federal agencies, though military-related requests often present unique challenges due to national security considerations.
For Walsh, the decision represents the end of his federal court challenge unless he seeks further review. The retired Marine captain could potentially petition the Supreme Court for certiorari, though the high court accepts only a small percentage of such requests and typically focuses on cases involving novel legal questions or circuit splits.
The Department of the Navy's successful defense of its FOIA response adds to the body of case law supporting agencies' ability to withhold records under applicable exemptions. Military departments frequently invoke exemptions related to national security, operational security, and personnel privacy when responding to information requests.
FOIA remains a critical tool for government transparency, allowing journalists, researchers, and citizens to access federal records. However, the law's exemptions create ongoing litigation as requesters challenge agencies' withholding decisions and agencies defend their interpretation of applicable exemptions.
The case also highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking military records, which often involve sensitive information about operations, personnel, and national security matters. The balance between transparency and security continues to shape FOIA litigation across federal courts.
While the specific records Walsh sought remain unclear from the available court documents, the case demonstrates the difficulty of successfully challenging agency FOIA determinations in federal court. Courts generally defer to agency expertise in determining whether exemptions apply, particularly in matters involving military and national security considerations.
The Eighth Circuit's affirmance without additional analysis suggests the district court's reasoning was sufficiently thorough and legally sound to withstand appellate scrutiny. This outcome reinforces the Department of the Navy's position that its FOIA response was appropriate under applicable law and regulations.