The U.S. Supreme Court case, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, 2020 revolved around the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its exemption for "deliberative process privilege". The Sierra Club had requested documents related to a proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulation under FOIA but was denied access by the Fish and Wildlife Service citing this exemption as these were draft biological opinions that were part of their internal deliberation process before reaching a final decision on the matter at hand. The Ninth Circuit court ruled in favor of Sierra Club stating drafts can't be exempted from disclosure if they have practical effects or alter legal rights even if they are not final decisions. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it reversed this ruling with an opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett stating that just because a document has significant consequences doesn’t make it subject to FOIA requests; what matters is whether it communicates a policy on which agency has settled or represents agency's final decision-making process.

In the dissenting opinion for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Justice Breyer argued that the documents in question should not be exempt from disclosure under FOIA's deliberative process privilege because they were effectively final decisions on a matter of policy. He contended that these documents represented more than just internal agency discussions or drafts; instead, they had real-world effects by determining what standards would apply to certain cooling water intake structures at industrial facilities. In his view, shielding such consequential determinations from public scrutiny undermines the transparency goals of FOIA and allows agencies to operate in secrecy even when making significant policy choices.