DEVINE v. U.S. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An agency sent a letter critical of an employee to a congressional subcommittee. The court held this was not an illegal disclosure under the Privacy Act, as the Act’s exception for communications to Congress is absolute and does not depend on the agency’s motive or knowledge of a potential leak.
Legal Significance: The Privacy Act’s exception for disclosures to Congress, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9), is interpreted strictly according to its plain text. Courts will not imply a motive or good-faith requirement that would limit an agency’s ability to provide information to a congressional committee with proper jurisdiction.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) investigated Michael Devine, an INS official, for allegedly misleading a congressional delegation. The OIG’s report recommended disciplinary action. After the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) exonerated Devine, the IG sent a letter to the Chairman and a member of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, which had jurisdiction over the matter. The letter expressed “deep dissatisfaction” with the MSPB’s decision and criticized Devine’s subsequent promotion. The IG’s office was aware that a congressman intended to release the letter. A redacted version, which still identified and discussed Devine, was subsequently released to the media by the congressman’s office, leading to negative press coverage. Devine sued the government, alleging that the IG’s disclosure of the letter to the subcommittee violated the Privacy Act of 1974. The district court granted summary judgment to the government, finding the disclosure was permitted under the Act’s exception for communications to Congress.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Privacy Act’s exception permitting agency disclosure of records to a congressional subcommittee, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9), apply even if the disclosing agency knows or should know that the subcommittee is likely to release the information to the public?
Yes. The disclosure of the IG’s letter fell squarely within the unambiguous Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the Privacy Act’s exception permitting agency disclosure of records to a congressional subcommittee, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9), apply even if the disclosing agency knows or should know that the subcommittee is likely to release the information to the public?
Conclusion
This case establishes a bright-line rule that the Privacy Act's exception for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo c
Legal Rule
Under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9), an agency may disclose a record without Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat
Legal Analysis
The Second Circuit's analysis rested on a straightforward application of statutory interpretation Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidata
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Privacy Act’s exception, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9), permits an agency