Newport Aeronautical Sales v. Department of the Air Force
401 U.S. App. D.C. 364
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Newport Aeronautical Sales (Newport) is a commercial data library that collects Air Force technical information and sells it to qualified U.S. contractors.
- Newport filed FOIA requests in 2003-2004 for 155 Air Force technical orders concerning care, maintenance, and repair of military equipment.
- The Air Force denied the requests under FOIA Exemption 3, invoking 10 U.S.C. § 130(a), which allows withholding of certain technical data with military or space application that cannot be exported without licenses.
- Directive 5230.25, issued under § 130(b), governs releases to qualified U.S. contractors and limits disclosure of data that may jeopardize an important military advantage, with redistribution restrictions.
- Newport sued, arguing FOIA required release, and that the Air Force’s application of Directive 5230.25 to noncritical data violated FOIA; the Air Force eventually released all 155 orders under the Directive.
- The district court dismissed Newport’s non-FOIA claims and then summary-judgment-affirmed dismissal of FOIA claims, holding § 130(a) is an Exemption 3 statute and that the data fall within it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 130(a) qualify as an Exemption 3 statute? | Newport contends § 130(a) is not a valid Exemption 3 statute; it should be limited to 'sophisticated' or 'critical' data. | Air Force argues § 130(a) broadly authorizes withholding of technical data with military/space application without export licenses. | Yes; § 130(a) is an Exemption 3 statute and covers Newport's requested documents. |
| Do the withheld documents fall within § 130(a)'s coverage? | Newport asserts the 155 orders are noncritical and not subject to the Directive; disclosure should be FOIA-based. | Air Force maintains the data are technical data with military/space application and cannot be exported without a license. | Yes; the data qualify as technical data with military/space application and are within § 130(a). |
| Does the Directive 5230.25 limit FOIA withholding under § 130(a)? | Newport argues Directive 5230.25 narrows § 130(a) and that only critical technology may be withheld; otherwise data must be released under FOIA. | Air Force asserts Directive 5230.25 does not limit FOIA withholding under § 130(a). | No; the directive cannot control FOIA disclosure limits; § 130(a) alone governs, and the policy does not violate FOIA. |
| Is Newport's FOIA challenge moot because documents were released under Directive 5230.25? | Newport asserts ongoing injury from an impermissible FOIA policy regarding noncritical data. | Air Force contends mootness since documents were released; policy mootness analysis allows continued challenge to the policy. | Not moot; ongoing injury from the Air Force's policy persists, satisfying the mootness exception. |
| Is Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control v. Dep’t of Commerce applicable? | Newport relies on Wisconsin Project to treat a regulator-derived exemption as controlling for FOIA. | Air Force contends Wisconsin Project is inapplicable due to differences in statutes and framework. | Not applicable; Wisconsin Project does not control here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams & Connolly v. SEC, 662 F.3d 1240 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (mootness related to document disclosure in FOIA)
- Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (continuing injury from agency practice not mooted by partial disclosure)
- Better Gov’t Ass’n v. Dep’t of State, 780 F.2d 86 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (continued injury from policy despite partial disclosure)
- Milner v. Dep’t of Navy, 131 S. Ct. 1259 (S. Ct. 2011) (legislative history not for creating ambiguity; clarifies FOIA context)
- Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control v. Dep’t of Commerce, 317 F.3d 275 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (addressed executive-order-based exemption framework in export data; distinguished here)
- Swan v. SEC, 96 F.3d 498 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (FOIA distinctions based on requester not controlling release)
- City of Houston v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev, 24 F.3d 1421 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (retains analogy for continuing injury and FOIA policy challenges)
- ACLU v. Dep’t of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing FOIA exemption determinations)