Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: April 22, 2019
Decided: June 24, 2019
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor


Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 22, 2019, during the court's 2018-2019 term. It came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.[1]

On June 24, 2019, the court issued a 6-3 decision that reversed the 8th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Click here for more information on the opinion.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Argus Leader Media filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) how much money retailers receive from taxpayers each year. The USDA would not release them, citing numerous FOIA exemptions. Argus filed a lawsuit against the USDA in federal district court, which found that the USDA's withholding of information under FOIA Exemption 3 was correct. Argus appealed in the 8th Circuit Court, which determined that Exemption 3 did not apply to this case, and remanded the case to the district court. When the district court heard the case again, the question was whether Exemption 4 applied to the information Argus was requesting. The court found the USDA's claims of competitive injury were speculative. The USDA did not appeal the judgment but the petitioner Food Marketing Institute (FMI) instead filed the appeal, which the 8th Circuit affirmed.
  • The issues: (1) Whether the statutory term “confidential” in the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4 bears 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; and (2) whether, in the alternative, if the Supreme Court retains the substantial-competitive-harm test, that test is satisfied when the requested information could be potentially useful to a competitor, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st and 10th Circuits have held, or whether the party opposing disclosure must establish with near certainty a defined competitive harm like lost market share, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 9th and District of Columbia Circuits have held, and as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit required here.
  • The outcome: On June 24, 2019, the court issued a 6-3 decision that reversed the 8th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case. The court held that when an owner of commercial or financial information treats the information as private and shares that information with the government with an understanding of continued privacy, the information is "confidential" within the meaning of FOIA Exemption 4.[2]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[3]

    Timeline

    • June 25, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 8th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case.
    • April 22, 2019: Oral argument
    • January 11, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case
    • October 11, 2018: Petition filed with the U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 8, 2018: The 8th Circuit affirmed the case

    Background

    Argus Leader Media, a South Dakota newspaper, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) how much money retailers receive from taxpayers each year. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), run by the USDA, gives its recipients a card they can use to buy food from participating retailers. When recipients do so, the USDA receives a record of the purchase. Argus Leader Media was seeking the SNAP redemption totals. The USDA would not release them, citing numerous FOIA exemptions.

    Argus filed a lawsuit against the USDA in federal district court, which found that the USDA's withholding of information under FOIA Exemption 3 was correct. Exemption 3 "applies to information prohibited from disclosure by another federal law," according to Oyez. Argus appealed in the 8th Circuit Court, which determined that Exemption 3 did not apply to this case, and remanded the case to the district court. When the district court heard the case again, the question was whether Exemption 4, which is used to withhold "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential," applied to the information Argus was requesting.[4][5]

    In interpreting Exemption 4, courts have taken the word "confidential" to mean that it applies if the release of information could cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person releasing the information. The district court hearing the case used the definition from the D.C. Circuit, which said that “competitive harm may be established if there is evidence of ‘actual competition and the likelihood of substantial competitive injury.’” When applying that definition, the court found that the grocery retail industry was highly competitive, but that the USDA had not proved a likelihood of substantial competitive injury. The court also found the USDA's claims of competitive injury were speculative. The USDA did not appeal the judgment but the petitioner Food Marketing Institute (FMI) instead filed the appeal, which the 8th Circuit affirmed.[3]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[6]

    Questions presented:
    • (1) Whether the statutory term “confidential” in the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4 bears 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; and (2) whether, in the alternative, if the Supreme Court retains the substantial-competitive-harm test, that test is satisfied when the requested information could be potentially useful to a competitor, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st and 10th Circuits have held, or whether the party opposing disclosure must establish with near certainty a defined competitive harm like lost market share, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 9th and District of Columbia Circuits have held, and as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit required here.

    Outcome

    On June 24, 2019, the court issued a 6-3 decision that reversed the 8th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case. The court held that when an owner of commercial or financial information treats the information as private and shares that information with the government with an understanding of continued privacy, the information is "confidential" within the meaning of FOIA Exemption 4.[2]

    Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[2]

    “ 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.[7] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor.[2]

    In his dissent, Justice Breyer argued that a third condition for holding that commercial or financial information is confidential, writing, "The majority spells out two conditions, but in my view there is a third: Release of such information must also cause genuine harm to the owner’s economic or business interests."[2]

    Breyer continued:

    “ A tool used to probe the relationship between government and business should not be unavailable whenever government and business wish it so. And given the temptation, common across the private and public sectors, to regard as secret all information that need not be disclosed, I fear the majority’s reading will deprive the public of information for reasons no better than convenience, skittishness, or bureaucratic inertia. [7] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio



    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Docket No. 18-481," accessed March 14, 2019
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Supreme Court of the United States, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, decided June 24, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 CaseText, "Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media," accessed March 14, 2019
    4. ↑ Oyez, "Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media," accessed March 14, 2019
    5. ↑ Legal Information Institute, "5 U.S. Code § 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings," accessed March 14, 2019
    6. ↑ SCOTUS Blog, "Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media," accessed March 14, 2018
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Food_Marketing_Institute_v._Argus_Leader_Media&oldid=9117282"