Milner v. Department of the Navy
131 S. Ct. 1259
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- Navy, at Naval Magazine Indian Island, stores explosives and uses ESQD data/maps to design storage facilities.
- Glen Milner filed FOIA requests in 2003-2004 for ESQD information relating to Indian Island; Navy withheld under Exemption 2.
- District Court and Ninth Circuit (Crooker-based High 2) ruled in favor of the Navy, upholding Exemption 2 as to ESQD data.
- Court of Appeals treated ESQD information as ‘predominantly internal’ and potentially preventing circumvention of law, citing Crooker High 2.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve Exemption 2’s scope; majority reverses Crooker-based approach and limits Exemption 2 to Low 2.
- Court suggests other FOIA exemptions (Exemption 1, 7, and 7(F)) may shield sensitive ESQD data if applicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Exemption 2 | Milner: Exemption 2 covers only internal HR matters (Low 2); ESQD data not within. | Navy: Exemption 2 includes broader, High 2 (predominantly internal; risk of circumvention). | Exemption 2 limited to internal HR; High 2 rejected. |
| Whether ESQD maps/data fall under Low 2 | ESQD data relates to explosives handling, not personnel rules. | ESQD data supports internal Navy operations and employee instructions. | ESQD data not within Low 2; not exempt under Exemption 2. |
| Effect of Crooker High 2 and legislative history | Crooker reflects longstanding practice; should be preserved absent textual support. | Crooker’s High 2 is textual and historical; Congress amended Exemption 7(E) but not Exemption 2. | High 2 rejected; Crooker not adopted as controlling interpretation. |
| Alternative exemptions for ESQD data | If Exemption 2 fails, other exemptions (e.g., Exemption 7(F)) may cover ESQD data. | Exemption 7(F) requires a compilation for law enforcement purposes; uncertain here. | Exemption 7(F) remains potentially available on remand; not decided by the Court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U. S. 352 (1976) (limits Exemption 2 to narrower internal HR scope)
- Rose, 425 U. S. 352 (1976) (reiterates narrow interpretation of Exemption 2)
- Town v. Abramson, 456 U. S. 615 (1982) (Exemption 2 must be narrowly construed)
- Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U. S. 136 (1989) (FOIA exemptions narrowly construed)
- Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (en banc), 670 F.2d 1051 (1981) (High 2 approach expanding Exemption 2)
- John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U. S. 146 (1989) (Exemption 7 construed to include documents compiled for later law enforcement use)
- Massey v. FBI, 3 F.3d 620 (1993) (illustrates circuit-to-circuit variation on Exemption 2)
- Kaganove v. EPA, 856 F.2d 884 (1988) (interpretations of Exemption 2 in the Seventh Circuit)
- Audubon Soc. v. United States Forest Serv., 104 F.3d 1201 (1997) (exemplifies disclosure of internal matters under Exemption 2)
- Cox v. Department of Justice, 576 F.2d 1302 (1978) (Low 2 interpretation in several circuits)