(“EPIC”) v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 777 F.3d 518, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Resp. v. U.S. Section, Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n, 740 F.3d 195, 202-03 (D.C. Cir. 2014)) (internal quotations omitted).

The Department appeals, and our review of the grant of summary judgment is de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Section, Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n, U.S.–Mexico, 740 F.3d 195, 200 (D.C.Cir.2014) ( “PEER ”).II.

So, Exemption 5, as "ordinarily interpreted," does not protect DOJ's communications with private litigants from disclosure. Pub. Emps. for Env't Resp. v. U.S. Section, Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n, 740 F.3d 195, 201 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Kavanaugh, J.) (cleaned up).

Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Section, Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n, U.S.–Mexico ("PEER "), 740 F.3d 195, 203 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) ). "[T]he agency's activity ‘must be related to the enforcement of federal laws or to the maintenance of national security,’ " and "the nexus between the [activity] and one of the agency's law enforcement duties must be based on information sufficient to support at least ‘a colorable claim’ of its rationality." Pinson v. DOJ , 202 F.Supp.3d 86, 101–02 (D.D.C. 2016) (second alteration in original) (quoting Pratt v. Webster , 673 F.2d 408, 420–21 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ).

Pub. Emps. for Env't. Resp. v. U.S. Section, Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n, U.S.-Mexico ("PEER"), 740 F.3d 195, 202-03 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)).

"The term ‘law enforcement’ in Exemption 7 refers to the act of enforcing the law, both civil and criminal." Pub. Emps. for Env't Responsibility v. U.S. Section, Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n, U.S.-Mexico ("PEER"), 740 F.3d 195, 203 (D.C. Cir. 2014). "[T]he term ‘compiled’ in Exemption 7 requires that a document be created, gathered, or used by an agency for law enforcement purposes at some time before the agency invokes the exemption." Id.

“To fall within Exemption 7, documents must first meet a threshold requirement: that the records were ‘compiled for law enforcement purposes.'” Pub. Emps. for Envt'l Resp. v. U.S.Section, Int'lBoundary & WaterComm'n, U.S.-Mexico (“PEER”), 740 F.3d 195, 202-03 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)). To show that the Spreadsheet Report was “compiled for law enforcement purposes,” ICE “need only ‘establish a rational nexus between [the withholding] and one of the agency's law enforcement duties,” as well as a “connection between an individual or incident and a possible . . . violation of federal law.'” Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Campbell v. Dep't of Just, 164 F.3d 20, 32 (D.C. Cir. 1998)).

"The term ‘law enforcement’ in Exemption 7 refers to the act of enforcing the law, both civil and criminal." Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Resp. v. U.S. Section, Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n, 740 F.3d 195, 203 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (" PEER ").

That means that the record was "created, gathered, or used by an agency for law enforcement purposes at some time before the agency invokes the exemption." Pub. Emps. for Env't Resp. v. U.S. Section, Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n, U.S.-Mex. ("PEER") , 740 F.3d 195, 203 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Second, the release of the record must disclose techniques, procedures, or guidelines used for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.

" Sack v. U.S. Dep't of Defense , 823 F.3d 687, 694 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) ); see alsoMilner v. Dep't of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562, 581, 131 S.Ct. 1259, 179 L.Ed.2d 268 (2011) ("Exemption 7 ... protects ‘information compiled for law enforcement purposes' that meets one of six criteria, ...." (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) )); John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp ., 493 U.S. 146, 156, 110 S.Ct. 471, 107 L.Ed.2d 462 (1989) ("Exemption 7 requires the Government to demonstrate that a record is ‘compiled for law enforcement purposes' and that disclosure would effectuate one or more of the six specified harms." (internal citation omitted) (emphasis in original)); Public Emples. for Envtl. Responsibility v. United States Section, Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n ("PEER"), 740 F.3d 195, 202–03 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ("To fall within Exemption 7, documents must first meet a threshold requirement: that the records were ‘compiled for law enforcement purposes.’ " (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) )). Consequently, "judicial review of an asserted Exemption 7 privilege requires a two-part inquiry" that considers: "[f]irst, a requested document must be shown to have been an investigatory record ‘compiled for law enforcement purposes' "; and, second, "[i]f so, the agency must demonstrate that release of the material would have one of the six results specified in the Act.