American Farm Bureau Federation v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
836 F.3d 963
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- EPA compiled a national CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) inventory using state and federal sources and released spreadsheets in response to FOIA requests that included owners’ names, home addresses, phone numbers, e-mails, and GPS coordinates.
- American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers Council sued in a "reverse" FOIA action under the APA seeking to prevent further EPA disclosures and to recall already-released personal data, arguing Exemption 6 (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)) and related privacy protections barred disclosure.
- District court dismissed for lack of Article III standing, holding plaintiffs’ members lacked a cognizable injury because similar information was publicly available.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit assumed plaintiffs would win on the merits for standing analysis and held the associations had organizational standing to sue on behalf of members who suffered nonconsensual disclosures.
- The Eighth Circuit reached the merits and held EPA abused its discretion: aggregation and release by EPA created a substantial privacy interest and the limited public interest in personal contact information did not outweigh that privacy interest; records were therefore exempt under Exemption 6.
- Court remanded for further proceedings on whether injunctive relief is appropriate and whether independent law (Privacy Act or internal EPA policy) forbids disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to bring reverse FOIA challenge | Associations: members suffered concrete injury from EPA’s nonconsensual disclosure of personal information; injury traceable and redressable | EPA: no injury because same information already publicly available; no causation or redressability | Plaintiffs have organizational standing; nonconsensual dissemination is a concrete, particularized injury traceable to EPA and redressable by relief |
| Whether EPA’s release implicated a substantial privacy interest under Exemption 6 | Associations: names, home addresses, phones, GPS, and financial-related data create a substantial privacy interest, especially when aggregated by EPA | EPA: information was already in public domain or on state/federal sites, so no substantial privacy interest | Aggregation by EPA into a centralized, easily usable database creates a substantial privacy interest; availability elsewhere does not defeat that interest |
| Balance of privacy interest vs. public interest under Exemption 6 | Associations: public interest in agency performance can be satisfied without releasing personal contact data; redactions feasible | EPA: disclosure serves public interest by showing agency’s efforts to compile CAFO data and supports Clean Water Act citizen involvement | Disclosure of personal contact details would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy because the marginal public interest (verifying EPA’s data-collection) is minimal and can be met by redacted records |
| Scope of relief and independent prohibitions on disclosure | Associations: seek injunction/recall and argue Privacy Act or EPA policy independently forbids release | EPA: Privacy Act provision cited does not apply; agency has discretion to disclose within FOIA unless independent law prohibits | Remanded to district court to decide injunctive relief and whether Privacy Act or internal EPA policy independently prohibits disclosure; merits not resolved here |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
- United States Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (aggregation of dispersed public records into a centralized government compilation raises distinct privacy concerns)
- U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (an individual’s privacy interest does not vanish because information is publicly accessible elsewhere)
- Campaign for Family Farms v. Glickman, 200 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir.) (framework for Exemption 6 and agency discretion to disclose within FOIA)
- Multi Ag Media LLC v. Dep’t of Agric., 515 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir.) (definition of a "substantial" privacy interest and Exemption 6 balancing)