Cameranesi v. United States Department of Defense
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17714
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- WHINSEC (successor to the School of the Americas) provides U.S. training to Western Hemisphere military/law-enforcement personnel; Congress mandated human-rights instruction and Board of Visitors oversight.
- From 1994–2004 the DOD publicly released names of SOA/WHINSEC students and instructors; after 2005 DOD stopped public disclosures and redacted names, citing privacy and security risks.
- Plaintiffs (members of School of the Americas Watch) submitted a FOIA request (2011) for names, ranks, units, courses, and attendance dates (FY2005–2010); DOD withheld names/units under Exemption 6 and denied administrative appeal.
- District court granted plaintiffs summary judgment, finding no substantial privacy interest because names had been disclosed historically and no promise of confidentiality. DOD appealed.
- Ninth Circuit majority reversed: it found DOD affidavits (security assessments, testimony) established a nontrivial privacy interest and that the limited public interest in disclosure did not outweigh privacy risks, so Exemption 6 applies. Dissent would have affirmed the district court, faulting the government’s sparse justification for reversing its prior disclosure practice and emphasizing a strong public interest in oversight.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether names/units of foreign WHINSEC students and instructors are exempt under FOIA Exemption 6 | Plaintiffs: public interest in monitoring DOD/State vetting and in tracking graduates' post-training conduct outweighs privacy concerns | DOD: disclosure would risk harassment, retaliation, violence to foreign students/instructors; nontrivial privacy interest justifies withholding | Reversed district court: DOD established nontrivial privacy interest and public interest was too limited to overcome privacy risks; Exemption 6 applies |
| Whether historical public disclosure (1994–2004) undermines DOD’s new nondisclosure | Plaintiffs: prior disclosure and lack of promised confidentiality mean no reasonable expectation of privacy | DOD: later policy change based on national security/privacy concerns and evolving threat environment supports withholding | Majority: prior disclosure does not defeat present privacy interest given DOD’s logical, plausible risk evidence; dissent disagrees and finds government explanation insufficient |
| Standard for assessing Exemption 6 balancing and burdens of proof | Plaintiffs: Favish-like evidentiary showing required to establish government impropriety and substantial public interest | DOD: agency may show plausible risk; FOIA public-interest inquiry limited to whether disclosure sheds light on government operations | Court: two-step test—(1) nontrivial privacy interest; (2) balance against public interest in understanding agency operations; requester must show disclosure likely advances that interest (Favish standard for impropriety claims) |
| Whether FOIA requester’s private/public interest in the information matters | Plaintiffs: their investigative/public-interest purposes justify disclosure | DOD: requester’s private motives irrelevant; only public interest in shedding light on government matters counts | Court: only public interest in monitoring agency operations counts; requester must show information likely advances that interest; plaintiffs’ asserted interests insufficient to overcome privacy risks |
Key Cases Cited
- Yonemoto v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 686 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2012) (two-step Exemption 6/7(C) privacy balancing; deference to agency affidavits on privacy risk)
- Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (requester must produce evidence warranting a reasonable belief of government impropriety when seeking to overcome privacy interests)
- Dep’t of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (1994) (FOIA public-interest inquiry limited to information that sheds light on government operations)
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press v. DOJ, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (information that reveals little about government operations does not serve FOIA’s public-interest purpose)
- Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (1991) (disclosure of names can be a significant invasion of privacy where it could lead to embarrassment, retaliation, or risk of mistreatment)
- Forest Serv. Emps. for Envtl. Ethics v. U.S. Forest Serv., 524 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing avoidance of harassment as cognizable Exemption 6 privacy interest)
- Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (applied conventional summary-judgment standards in FOIA cases)