Cameranesi v. United States Department of Defense, 856 F.3d 626

Background

WHINSEC (formerly School of the Americas) provides U.S. military training to Western Hemisphere foreign personnel; Congress required a human-rights curriculum and Board of Visitors oversight after abuses tied to SOA.
From 1994–2004 the DOD publicly disclosed names of SOA/WHINSEC students and instructors (SOAW compiled a public database); in 2005 DOD stopped public disclosure and began redacting names, citing privacy and safety concerns.
Plaintiffs (members of School of the Americas Watch) submitted a FOIA request (2011) for names, ranks, units, courses, and attendance dates for WHINSEC attendees (2005–2010); DOD withheld names under FOIA Exemption 6.
The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs; DOD appealed. The Ninth Circuit applied the standard FOIA two-step Exemption 6 balancing test: (1) nontrivial privacy interest, (2) whether public interest outweighs that privacy interest.
The DOD submitted affidavits (including risk assessments and testimony of generals) asserting disclosure would risk harassment, retaliation, or death to foreign students/instructors; plaintiffs argued public oversight and historical abuses justify disclosure to monitor vetting and effectiveness of human-rights training.
The Ninth Circuit (Ikuta, J.) reversed the district court: held DOD met its burden that nontrivial privacy interests exist and that the public interest in disclosure was marginal relative to significant safety risks, so Exemption 6 applies.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether names/units of WHINSEC attendees implicate a nontrivial privacy interest under Exemption 6	Plaintiffs: No substantial privacy interest; names were historically public and no promise of confidentiality	DOD: Disclosure would risk harassment, retaliation, or violence to attendees and families; foreign governments oppose disclosure	Held: DOD carried its burden; disclosure implicates a nontrivial privacy interest (risk of mistreatment/harassment)
Whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs privacy (FOIA balancing)	Plaintiffs: Names are needed to assess vetting, statutory compliance (Leahy), and effectiveness of WHINSEC human-rights training; past SOA abuses support public oversight	DOD: Public interest is limited because Board of Visitors and DOD reports already provide oversight; marginal value of names does not outweigh safety risks	Held: Public interest is marginal and does not outweigh the privacy/safety risks; Exemption 6 protects names
Whether DOD had to explain its change in disclosure policy (post-2004)	Plaintiffs: DOD must justify reversing long-standing disclosure practice; historical disclosure suggests lower risk	DOD: No special obligation to explain policy change beyond showing present risks from record evidence	Held: Court rejected special burden to justify the policy change; evaluated the record evidence and found DOD’s submissions sufficient
Whether allegations of government impropriety (vetting failures) meet the Favish threshold to overcome privacy	Plaintiffs: Identified instances of alleged attendees with alleged human-rights violations showing vetting failures	DOD: Two alleged errors among thousands insufficient to show governmental impropriety or to overcome privacy presumption	Held: Plaintiffs’ evidence inadequate under Favish; did not produce sufficient evidence to warrant disclosure

Key Cases Cited

Yonemoto v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 686 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2011) (two-step FOIA/Exemption 6 framework and privacy-interest analysis)
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (standard summary-judgment review in FOIA cases)
Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. Dep’t of Justice, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (FOIA public-interest limitation: information must shed light on government conduct)
Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (requester must produce evidence sufficient to warrant belief of government impropriety when alleging misconduct)
Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (1991) (privacy harms from disclosure can be significant even without proof of actual past abuse)
Dep’t of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (1994) (public interest under FOIA limited to shedding light on government operations)
Forest Serv. Emps. for Envtl. Ethics v. U.S. Forest Serv., 524 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2008) (privacy interest: avoidance of harassment; marginal public usefulness insufficient)
Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2009) (nontrivial privacy interest and limits on speculative harm)
Prudential Locations LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 739 F.3d 424 (9th Cir. 2013) (marginal additional usefulness of identities does not overcome privacy)
Associated Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 554 F.3d 274 (2d Cir. 2009) (Favish bars disclosure absent evidence of government impropriety)