Supreme Court Strengthens Shield Blocking Disclosure of Company Financials
The justices, in a 6-3 vote, took a pro-business stance on the interpretation of the word “confidential."
June 24, 2019 at 11:38 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
In a win for business advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday made it easier for the federal government to prevent companies' financial information from being released to the public under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
By a 6-3 vote, the court in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media adopted a pro-business interpretation of the word “confidential” in Exemption 4 of the FOIA, which allows the government to withhold from public view “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.”
“At least where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is 'confidential' within the meaning of Exemption 4,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, disagreed with the majority's conclusion that Exemption 4 imposes no “harm” requirement.
“After all, the word 'confidential' sometimes refers, at least in the national security context, to information the disclosure of which would cause harm,” wrote Breyer, who said he would remand the case for a determination whether the release of the information at issue would cause genuine harm.
The Argus Leader, a South Dakota newspaper represented by Robert Loeb, a partner at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, cited the FOIA in seeking data from the Agriculture Department on how much money grocery stores received from taxpayers under the federal food stamp program. The Agriculture Department refused to release data from individual stores, invoking Exemption 4 of the FOIA.
The newspaper challenged the department, citing National Parks & Conservation Association v. Morton, a widely used 1974 D.C. Circuit precedent that interpreted “confidential” to mean that disclosure of the information would cause “substantial competitive harm.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit ruled in favor of the newspaper last year.
The Food Marketing Institute appealed to the Supreme Court, calling the National Parks precedent “atextual” and asserting that the word “confidential” is unambiguous, pertaining only to “something that is private and not publicly disclosed.”
Baker Botts partner Evan Young argued on behalf of the institute before the high court. In a statement Monday, Young said, “This is a well-written opinion reiterating that the role of federal courts is to apply the law as written.”
In a brief for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Arnold & Porter partner John Elwood told the court that the chamber's members have a “keen interest in the proper interpretation of FOIA's Exemption 4,” and that litigating the issue would be “extremely burdensome” for small businesses.
During oral argument in April, several justices seemed to assert their Supreme Court's supremacy over the D.C. Circuit in statutory interpretation.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked, “You're saying that the D.C. Circuit decision and then other measures using the same language stops this court from saying what the words of Exemption 4 mean?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also said, “Why, if we disagree with National Parks, the D.C. Circuit's decision, should we nonetheless follow it?”
A group of media organizations led by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed an amicus brief in the case, urging the justices to adopt the National Parks test, because it “ensures that the public can access agency records to learn the details of how government programs use public dollars.” (Disclosure: Tony Mauro is a senior adviser to the committee.)
Marcia Coyle contributed to this report.
The court's ruling in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader is posted below:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Litigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
The New Federal Sentencing Factor in Downstate New York? Prison Conditions
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250