In the case United States Department of State v. Michael D. Ray et al., 1991, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. government's right to withhold information under exemption five of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The respondents had requested documents related to Haiti's human rights practices from the State Department, which refused to disclose some on grounds that they were "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums" exempted by FOIA. The court held that these documents fell within this exemption and their release could inhibit open dialogue among agency personnel in future policy-making discussions. This decision reinforced a broad interpretation of Exemption Five, allowing for greater governmental discretion over what constitutes privileged inter-agency communication.

In the dissenting opinion for United States Department of State v. Michael D. Ray et al., Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens, argued that the majority's decision to withhold information about alleged human rights abuses in Haiti under Exemption 1 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was a misinterpretation of FOIA’s purpose and intent. The dissenters believed that this exemption should not be used as a blanket protection against disclosure but rather applied on an individual document basis after careful review to determine if its release would indeed harm national security interests or foreign policy objectives. They also expressed concern over giving too much deference to executive branch determinations regarding what constitutes potential damage to U.S.'s foreign relations without any judicial oversight or check on such decisions.