The Oyez Project: Privacy Issues - Freedom of Information Act Decisions

Baldrige v. Shapiro

No details yet.

Bibles v. Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n

Must the Oregon Bureau of Land Management release a list of people who receive its newsletter under the Freedom of Information Act?

No. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Court of Appeals engaged in an incorrect public-interest analysis in determining whether the Oregon Bureau of Land Management's mailing list was exempt from disclosure under Exemption 6 of the FOIA. In accordance with previous case history, the Court concluded that "the only relevant public interest in the FOIA balancing analysis was the extent to which disclosure of the information sought would shed light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties or otherwise let citizens know what the government was up to." The Court additionally concluded that the purpose of requests have no bearing on disclosure.

Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Does the Federal Advisory Committee Act authorize judicial review of executive branch deliberations through a broad discovery process that allows a private organization to review internal documents of high-level advisors to the President? If such review is authorized by FACA, does it violate the Constitutional doctrine of separation of powers?

In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court sent the case back to the D.C. Court of Appeals, arguing that the appellate court should have considered separation-of-powers claims and was wrong to conclude it lacked authority to order District Court discovery to stop. Such an order (mandamus) to stop discovery proceedings should be considered because those proceedings, "by virtue of their overbreadth," could interfere with presidential activity. Further, the appellate court misinterpreted U.S. v. Nixon to mean that the government needed to assert executive privilege for separation-of-powers objections to be considered.

Chrysler Corp. v. Brown

No details yet.

Church Of Scientology Of California v. Irs

No details yet.

Cia v. Sims

No details yet.

Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. Gte Sylvania

No details yet.

Department Of Justice v. Tax Analysts

No details yet.

Department Of State v. Washington Post Co.

No details yet.

Dept of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protect. Assoc.

Are documents shared between the Klamath and other Indian Tribes and the Department of the Interior, which address tribal interests subject to state and federal proceedings to determine water allocations, exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, as " inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters?"

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court that there is no exemption under FOIA for the correspondence between the Tribes and the Bureau. Because the Klamath Tribe advocated its own positions in the water allocation proceedings, the communications between it and the Bureau did not equate to the role that personnel fulfils, in that personnel do not represent their own interests. Therefore, the documents were not exempt from public disclosure as inter-agency or intra-agency communications. "All of this boils down to requesting that we read an 'Indian trust' exemption into the statute, a reading that is out of the question," wrote Justice Souter for the Court.

Dept. Of Air Force v. Rose

No details yet.

Epa v. Mink

No details yet.

Faa Administrator v. Robertson

No details yet.

Fbi v. Abramson

No details yet.

FCC v. ITT World Communications, Inc.

No details yet.

Federal Open Market Committee v. Merrill

No details yet.

Forsham v. Harris

No details yet.

Ftc v. Grolier Inc.

No details yet.

Gte Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union

No details yet.

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Does Section 1782 of Title 28 of U.S. Code authorize a federal district court to compel the release of material for use in a "foreign tribunal" when the foreign tribunal itself is unwilling to demand production of the material? Does Section 1782 authorize a federal district court to compel the release of material for a fact-finding investigation by the directorate general of the European Commission on the theory that the information may eventually lead to an investigation by a foreign tribunal?

Yes and Yes. In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court ruled that just because a foreign tribunal was unwilling to demand certain documents did not mean that it would be unwilling to accept them if provided to them by other means. By permitting, but not forcing, American judges to allow discovery of certain documents, Congress allowed judges to exercise their discretion to decide whether a foreign tribunal would be receptive to the the documents at question. The Court also ruled that it would be impractical to limit the fact-finding to only the actual trial before a foreign tribunal because, in cases like this one, the foreign tribunal does not gather evidence itself but instead relies on the evidence presented to the investigatory commission (in this case the directorate general). In order to make the evidence available for the tribunal, therefore, it would be necessary to present it first to the commission.

John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp.

No details yet.

Kissinger v. Reporters Committee

No details yet.

National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish

Do family members of a man who apparently committed suicide have a privacy right that justifies the government's withholding autopsy photos from a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that the Foster family's interest in privacy outweighed the public interest in seeing pictures from Vincent Foster's death scene. The public interest could only trump privacy interests if Favish could present evidence that the government might have acted improperly. Favish failed to do so. The Court acknowledged that citizens seeking access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act normally need not explain why they seek the information. The act, however, exempts from disclosure records that would present an unwarranted invasion of privacy. In ruling that the act protected the privacy of the Foster family, the Court rejected Favish's argument that the act only protected Vincent Foster's privacy (an interest that Favish argued died with Foster).

NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.

No details yet.

NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

No details yet.

Public Citizen v. Department Of Justice

No details yet.

Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Co.

No details yet.

Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft

No details yet.

Societe Nat. Ind. Aero. v. U.S. Dist. Court

No details yet.

St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States

No details yet.

U.S. Dept. Of Justice v. Reporters Committee

Is a refusal to disclose an individual's personal FBI crime record to a third party justifiable under the "personal privacy" invasion exemption of the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that an individual's interest in nondisclosure of any criminal records that the FBI might have on him or her is precisely the sort of "personal privacy" that Congress intended to protect when it enacted FOIA exemptions. Balancing public knowledge interests against privacy considerations, the Court explained that RCFP's request was overly broad. The request sought access to all FBI records on Medico, rather than specific information concerning his file. Moreover, the Court stated that public interest in criminal record information is not increased simply because the requesting party is a news agency.

United States Department Of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

No details yet.

United States Department Of Justice v. Landano

No details yet.

United States Department Of State v. Ray

No details yet.

United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp.

No details yet.

Upjohn Co. v. United States

No details yet.

Weinberger v. Catholic Action Of Hawaii

No details yet.