Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media
139 S. Ct. 2356
| SCOTUS | 2019Background
- Argus Leader requested from USDA the names/addresses of SNAP-participating retail stores and each store’s annual SNAP redemption data (FY2005–2010).
- USDA released store identities but withheld store-level SNAP redemption figures under FOIA Exemption 4 ("commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential").
- District Court applied the Eighth Circuit’s "substantial competitive harm" test and concluded disclosure would not cause substantial competitive harm, ordering release of the data.
- Food Marketing Institute (representing grocery retailers) intervened and appealed; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the disclosure order.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the proper meaning of "confidential" under Exemption 4 and whether the "substantial competitive harm" test is required.
- The Court held that information is "confidential" under Exemption 4 when it is customarily and actually kept private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy; it rejected the categorical "substantial competitive harm" requirement and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Argus Leader (Plaintiff) Argument | Food Marketing Institute/USDA (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the ordinary meaning of "confidential" in Exemption 4? | "Confidential" should include only information whose disclosure is likely to cause substantial competitive harm. | "Confidential" covers information customarily kept private and given to the government under assurances of privacy. | Court: "Confidential" means information customarily and actually kept private and given under an assurance of privacy; no categorical substantial-competitive-harm requirement. |
| Must courts require proof that disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm before applying Exemption 4? | Yes — Eighth Circuit/National Parks test requires likely substantial competitive harm. | No — that additional harm showing is not in Exemption 4's text; adopting it improperly adds to the statute. | Court: Rejected National Parks substantial-harm overlay; statutory text controls. |
| Does providing information to the government without assurances forfeit confidentiality? | (Argus Leader implied) Disclosure to government can defeat confidentiality absent harm showing. | Government had long promised retailers confidentiality for SNAP data; assurances preserve confidential character. | Court: Where owner treats info as private and the government provided an assurance of privacy, the info is confidential. |
| Standing of Food Marketing Institute to appeal the disclosure order? | Argus Leader argued Institute lacked redressable injury. | Institute showed its members would likely suffer some competitive/financial injury traceable to the disclosure and redressable by reversal. | Court: Institute has Article III standing; injury is concrete and redressable. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (articulated the "substantial competitive harm" test for Exemption 4)
- Department of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (1993) (looked to common usage when construing FOIA exemption language)
- Milner v. Department of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011) (reaffirmed ordinary-meaning/text-first approach to FOIA exemptions)
- GSA v. Benson, 415 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1969) (interpreted Exemption 4 to protect information given to government under promise of confidentiality)