How journalists escalate FOIA requests when agencies refuse to release records
By Jake Wittich
Denials, delays and “unduly burdensome” responses are routine for immigration-related FOIA requests, but reporters don’t have to let stalled records halt their investigations.
The Investigative Project on Race and Equity’s latest FOIA training emphasized that escalation is not a last resort, but a core part of reporting on immigration when agencies refuse to cooperate.
Led by Jim Daley, investigations editor at South Side Weekly, the training walked journalists through what to do when agencies block records and how to keep investigations moving without waiting months — or years — for a response.
Fighting denials and “unduly burdensome” responses
FOIA officers frequently reject immigration-related requests by calling them “unduly burdensome,” which often leaves reporters at a loss on how to proceed. Daley encouraged journalists to treat the pushback itself as part of the reporting process.
“There’s a pretty good chance that they’re going to say that this is ‘unduly burdensome.’ I have spent years fighting with [the Chicago Police Department] to try to get emails from them,” Daley said.
Instead of shrinking the scope blindly, Daley recommended pressing for specificity about what the agency considers burdensome. That clarification can reveal which parts of the request the agency is most resistant to disclosing.
Daley also noted that even contradictory denials across departments can be useful. If one agency releases portions of a record while another refuses, the discrepancy itself can expose valuable information.
“Sometimes one agency might not give you all the records that another agency might,” Daley said.
When reporters treat FOIA responses and non-responses as strategic opportunities, denials become leads rather than dead-ends.
Appeals, litigation decisions and keeping investigations moving
For local FOIAs that stall without explanation, Daley urged participants to escalate rather than wait indefinitely.
“If they don’t give you a response at that point…I wouldn’t even go to the [public access counselor], I would call Loevy [& Loevy],” Daley said, referring to the Chicago law firm that represents newsrooms in public-records litigation.
But Daley noted that it is less financially feasible to sue for federal FOIAs versus suing city agencies.
“With the feds, it’s different… they quoted me… $2,500… the Weekly doesn’t have a budget for that… so I just had to drop it and be patient.”
Suing ICE can require newsrooms to pay attorneys’ fees upfront, even if they win the case. But under Illinois FOIA, lawsuits against the City of Chicago are financially viable because of fee-shifting, which means that if a newsroom wins, the court can order the City to pay the newsroom’s legal fees directly. That makes it possible for transparency attorneys like Loevy & Loevy to take city FOIA cases for small outlets that could never afford federal litigation.
Because litigation is not always possible, Daley stressed the importance of documentation for every request, denial and follow-up. Attorneys need those records if a newsroom chooses to appeal or sue later.
“I strongly recommend keeping a spreadsheet where you keep track of every single FOIA that you send,” Daley said.
Even with escalation tools available, Daley emphasized that investigations must be designed to withstand uncertainty.
“Investigations take time and patience… don’t plan on rushing investigations a lot of the time,” he said.
For Daley, building reporting timelines that do not depend on fast FOIA turnarounds is essential. Appeals and litigation may eventually produce records, but rigorous reporting has to move forward in the meantime.