Term: 2018
Docket: 18-481
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media
- Pro
18-481 FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE V. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA DECISION BELOW: 889 F3d. 914 CERT. GRANTED 1/11/2019 QUESTION PRESENTED: This Court has not yet addressed Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, which protects from disclosure all "confidential" private-sector "commercial or financial information" within the Government's possession. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). The Circuits, however, have adopted a definition of "confidential" that departs from the term's ordinary meaning, holding that this exemption applies only if disclosure is "likely * * * to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of" the source of the information. Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765,770 (D.C. Cir.1974). The D.C. Circuit fashioned this atextual test from its own sense of FOIA's purposes based on witness testimony in a legislative hearing about a predecessor bill from a prior Congress. The amorphous test has produced at least five different circuit splits as the Circuits have grappled with what constitutes a likelihood of substantial competitive harm. The questions presented are: 1. Does the statutory term "confidential" in FOIA Exemption 4 bear its ordinary meaning, thus requiring the Government to withhold all "commercial or financial information" that is confidentially held and not publicly disseminated-regardless of whether a party establishes substantial competitive harm from disclosure-which would resolve at least five circuit splits? 2. Alternatively, if the Court retains the substantial-competitive-harm test, is that test satisfied when the requested information could be potentially useful to a competitor (as the First and Tenth Circuits have held), or must the party opposing disclosure establish with near certainty a defined competitive harm like lost market share (as the Ninth and D.C. Circuits have held, and as the Eighth Circuit required here)? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 17-1346
The U.S. Supreme Court case Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 2018 revolved around the interpretation of a provision in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The dispute began when Argus Leader Media requested information from the USDA about its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), including store-level data on SNAP redemptions. The Food Marketing Institute sued to prevent this disclosure, arguing that it constituted confidential business information and should be exempted under FOIA's Exemption 4 which protects "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential." Lower courts ruled in favor of Argus Leader Media but were overturned by the Supreme Court decision which held that commercially valuable data can be considered confidential even if there isn't an assurance by government officials that such data will remain private nor evidence showing substantial competitive harm would result if disclosed.
In the dissenting opinion for FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE v. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, argued that the majority's interpretation of "confidential" was too broad and inconsistent with past interpretations of Exemption 4 in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). They contended that this new definition could potentially lead to an overuse of exemptions from FOIA requests. The dissenters believed that information should only be considered confidential if its release would likely cause substantial harm to a business's competitive position. This standard had been used by courts for nearly 45 years before this case. They expressed concern about potential negative impacts on transparency and public access to government-held information due to their colleagues' decision.
