In the case of United States Department of Justice, et al. v. Vincent James Landano, 1992, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not an individual seeking records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) must provide evidence that a source provided information to law enforcement confidentially in order for exemption 7(D) to apply. The court held that there is no presumption that all sources supplying information during a criminal investigation are confidential within FOIA's meaning and thus rejected the government’s blanket approach which presumed confidentiality for all its sources without considering specific circumstances. Instead, it was decided that each claim should be evaluated individually based on evidentiary factors such as nature of crime investigated and informant's relation to it.

In the dissenting opinion for United States Department of Justice, et al. v. Vincent James Landano, it was argued that the majority's decision to require a case-by-case approach in determining whether an informant’s identity is confidential under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) would result in unnecessary litigation and administrative burdens. The dissent highlighted that this approach contradicts Congress' intent when they enacted FOIA exemptions to protect certain categories of information from disclosure without requiring individualized determinations. They contended that informants should be presumed as providing information under an assurance of confidentiality due to their inherent risk-taking role, unless there is clear evidence suggesting otherwise. This presumption aligns with law enforcement practices and respects congressional intent while still allowing for exceptions where necessary.