Washington, D.C. — A motion asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for permission to file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Aaron Greenspan, the American transparency activist suing several U.S. federal agencies for records connected to a 1990s Chicago drug-trafficking investigation, was formally received by the court’s Clerk on September 4, 2026.
The proposed amicus curiae, Dr. Karl Von Batten — described in the filing as a Washington-based government-affairs and public-policy professional and Managing Partner of the lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C. — argues that a public statement issued a day earlier by the Nigerian Presidency undermines the privacy interests that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has invoked in the case as an intervenor.
Background to the case
The litigation, Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, et al., Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01816-BAH, before Judge Beryl A. Howell, dates back to 2022 and 2023, when Greenspan filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests with six U.S. federal agencies — the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Internal Revenue Service, the State Department and, later, the CIA — seeking records tied to a Chicago heroin-trafficking investigation from the early 1990s. The requests named four individuals, including Tinubu.
Several agencies initially issued so-called Glomar responses, refusing to confirm or deny that responsive records existed. Greenspan sued in June 2023 after being dissatisfied with the agencies’ handling of his requests. In April 2025, Judge Howell ruled that the FBI’s and DEA’s Glomar responses were improper and ordered both agencies to search for, process and determine what could lawfully be disclosed. Tinubu was subsequently permitted to join the case as an intervenor to press his own privacy arguments, and other agencies — the CIA, State Department, Treasury and IRS — were later dismissed from the suit after prevailing on Glomar-related grounds.
On August 28, 2026, Tinubu, through his lawyers, filed a response opposing Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment, asserting substantial privacy interests under FOIA Exemption 7(C) and the Privacy Act over undisclosed portions of the investigative files, notwithstanding earlier public disclosures connected to a related historical forfeiture proceeding.
The Statehouse Statement
Six days later, on September 3, 2026, the Nigerian Presidency, through Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy Bayo Onanuga, issued an official communication titled “Statehouse Statement: Clarification on the Ongoing Freedom of Information Act Case in Washington, D.C.” The statement described the U.S. case as a civil records-disclosure dispute rather than a criminal matter, stressed that it does not amount to a judicial finding against Tinubu, and confirmed that the FBI and DEA have produced 399 pages of records with redactions while Tinubu has separately invoked Exemption 7(C).
The statement also directly addressed Von Batten by name, characterizing his public commentary on the case as inaccurate and asserting that neither he nor his client — former Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar — is a party to the proceedings. It further set out the case’s procedural timeline: Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to respond to the filings of the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18, 2026, to respond to anything Greenspan files. Separately, the Presidency has described Greenspan as someone who works with Nigerian opposition figures, including journalist David Hundeyin and Abubakar — a characterization Greenspan disputes.
Von Batten’s argument
According to the motion, Von Batten contends that by voluntarily and publicly engaging with the substance of the litigation — including the FBI and DEA records, the redactions and Tinubu’s invocation of Exemption 7(C) — the Nigerian Presidency itself has made a public statement bearing on the “nature and weight” of the privacy interests Tinubu is asking the court to protect. The motion is careful to note that Von Batten is not arguing the Statehouse Statement categorically waives Tinubu’s privacy interests or defeats every exemption the government has asserted; rather, he says the court should weigh the Presidency’s own conduct in its Exemption 7(C) balancing.
The filing also invokes FOIA’s countervailing public-interest test, pointing to the FBI’s August 28 declaration stating that the withheld records were compiled as part of an investigation into multiple individuals for drug-trafficking offenses, and arguing this bears on the public’s interest in understanding how the FBI and DEA carried out and documented that investigation and how they subsequently processed the records for release.
On the question of why his participation is warranted, Von Batten notes that the September 3 statement was issued after the principal filings currently before the court and names him specifically, including characterizing his relationship with Abubakar — meaning, he argues, no existing party is positioned to respond to that particular development. The motion states he is not seeking intervention or party status, only leave to place the official statement and a narrow analysis of its relevance before the court.
Positions of the parties
As required under Local Civil Rule 7(o), the motion discloses that Greenspan opposes Von Batten’s request for leave to file. According to the filing, Greenspan argued the proposed submission does not appear to comply with the court’s rules and separately objected to the inclusion, within the attached Statehouse Statement and its transcript, of the Nigerian Presidency’s assertion that he works with Nigerian political figures — an assertion Greenspan maintains is false. Von Batten states he also sought the positions of the defendant agencies and of Tinubu as intervenor, but that neither had responded as of the time of filing.
What happens next
The motion, dated and received by the Clerk on September 4, 2026, does not itself place Von Batten’s brief on the docket — it only asks the court for permission to file it. Judge Howell has not yet ruled on the request. Under the case’s existing schedule, Greenspan must respond to the defendants’ and Tinubu’s filings by September 11, 2026, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18, 2026, to respond to Greenspan’s submissions — deadlines the Presidency’s own statement had already set out.
Von Batten, in comments posted alongside the filing, said his firm’s position is that Tinubu cannot simultaneously invoke privacy before a U.S. federal court while having the Nigerian Presidency publicly characterize the same investigative records. He said he expected the filing to be contested by Tinubu and other parties, but that his primary aim was to ensure the court is aware of the September 3 statement when weighing the privacy claims at issue — regardless of whether the court ultimately grants leave to file the brief itself.
