A federal judge has dismissed six of the nine counts brought against the Department of Homeland Security by a New Jersey resident who alleged the agency unlawfully investigated him and withheld public records. U.S. District Chief Judge James E. Boasberg granted a partial motion to dismiss filed by the government, trimming down the lawsuit brought by James F. Smythe.
Lawsuit Details
Smythe, who is representing himself, filed the complaint in August 2025 against DHS, Federal Protective Service Agent Jason S. Bookstaber, and two unnamed agents. According to court filings, Smythe alleged that DHS agents interviewed him and members of his family across separate households in retaliation for his public criticism of the government.
In April 2025, Smythe submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the Federal Protective Service seeking records, including communications referencing his name and communications involving his father. Agency officials initially deemed the requests too broad, leading to months of unanswered inquiries.
Smythe subsequently filed a nine-count suit alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Wiretap Act, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, alongside constitutional claims.
Judge’s Ruling
In the ruling handed down July 27, 2026, Judge Boasberg dismissed counts alleging disability discrimination, finding that Smythe failed to identify a specific disability or how it limited major life activities under the Rehabilitation Act. The court also noted that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to federal agencies.
The court dismissed Smythe’s Administrative Procedure Act claim because alternative legal remedies exist under FOIA and the Privacy Act. Judge Boasberg also tossed out civil rights claims against Agent Bookstaber due to a lack of personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia, and rejected similar constitutional claims against two unnamed agents, ruling that the situation did not fit established legal precedents for damages against federal officers.
Additionally, the court dismissed claims under the Wiretap Act, noting that the statute does not permit civil suits against the federal government itself, and rejected the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act claim because Smythe failed to exhaust required administrative remedies before filing suit.
The court’s order leaves intact Smythe’s claims regarding FOIA and Privacy Act processing, as well as a First Amendment retaliation claim that the government did not move to dismiss.
Original reporting: Tampa Free Press — read the source article.
