No. 25-1423October Term 2025Petition PendingUpdated Sep 2, 2026
Mark Geraghty Wonders v. Office of the Army General Counsel
Mark Geraghty Wonders, Petitioner v. Office of the Army General Counsel
Mark Geraghty Wonders asks the Supreme Court to review allegations that the Office of the Army General Counsel improperly withheld one of two legal reviews connected to his security-clearance matter.
Case status
- Current stage
- Petition Pending
- Latest event
- Petition pending
- Next
- Awaiting an order on the petitionNo decision timeline until the Court agrees to hear the case.
- What it's about
Mark Geraghty Wonders asks the Supreme Court to review allegations that the Office of the Army General Counsel improperly withheld one of two legal reviews connected to his security-clearance matter. He argues that the agency failed to follow a judge’s order, mislabeled and redacted the withheld review under the Freedom of Information Act, and later relied on privileges or protections that were not added to the relevant regulation until 2016.
Question presented
1. Did the Agency violate the law by disregarding a judge ’ s order and release only one of two legal reviews to the Petitioner in a security clearance hearing? 2. Did the Agency violate the law by misrepresenting the withheld legal review as a different Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") document, and completely redacting it, prior to submitting it to the Petitioner? 3. Did the Agency violate the law by denying the Petitioner ’ s subsequent 2012 and 2014 FOIA requests for the withheld legal review based upon claims of attorney-client privilege and FOIA protection not codified into the regulation until 2016?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit / Petition pending
- Area
Administrative Law
Briefing
What it's about
Mark Geraghty Wonders asks the Supreme Court to review claims that the Office of the Army General Counsel released only one of two legal reviews after a judge's order in a security-clearance hearing. He also challenges the agency's description and redaction of the other review and its denial of later Freedom of Information Act requests.
Argument
A petition for a writ of certiorari (a request that the Supreme Court hear a case) has been filed. Oral argument has not been scheduled.
Impact
The dispute could affect people seeking agency legal reviews while challenging security-clearance decisions. For example, a requester may seek an unredacted review to understand why an agency acted as it did.
What's next
The next step would be an oral-argument date or another scheduling action from the Court. No decision window is available yet.
What is the dispute in Wonders v. Office of the Army General Counsel?
Wonders challenges the agency's release of one legal review, withholding of another, and denial of later FOIA requests for that review.
Who could be affected by this case?
People seeking agency documents during security-clearance disputes could be affected, especially when agencies invoke attorney-client privilege to withhold legal advice.
When will the Supreme Court act in Wonders v. Office of the Army General Counsel?
Oral argument has not been scheduled. Watch for a scheduling move from the Court; no decision window is set.
Documents
Activity
Docket activity2
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Sep 2, 2026 | Generated
Brief added: Petition
Jul 24, 2025 | Court records
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Sep 2, 2026
- Method
- Methodology