Glen Scott Milner v. Department of the Navy
In brief
The Navy lost its Exemption 2 argument, but the Court did not decide whether another exemption permits withholding.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 8-1 · March 7, 2011 · Opinion by Justice Kagan
- What it’s about
- Milner sought Navy maps and data about explosions from training exercises under the Freedom of Information Act.
- Who it affects
- The Navy cannot withhold Milner's requested maps and data under Exemption 2, which covers employee-relations and human-resources records.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s decision allowing withholding under Exemption 2, which covers employee and human-resources records, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded); whether another exception permits withholding remains unresolved.
The Ninth Circuit had allowed the Navy to withhold the requested records under Exemption 2.
Question presented
Did the Ninth Circuit err by exempting documents relating to the effects of explosions from disclosure under the FOIA because they are "predominantly" for internal use and present a risk of circumventing agency regulation?
What the Court decided
Holding
Because Exemption 2 encompasses only records relating to employee relations and human resources issues, the explosives maps and data requested here do not qualify for withholding under that exemption. 575 F. 3d 959, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court read Exemption 2 as covering only records about employee relations and human resources. It said the explosion maps and data do not fit those categories.
The vote
From the opinions
“For one thing, the Crooker decision, joined by 9 of the 10 sitting Circuit Judges, has been consistently followed, or favorably cited, by every Court of Appeals to have considered the matter during the past 30 years.”
What's next
The case goes back to the Ninth Circuit. The Navy's argument under Exemption 7(F)—for certain law-enforcement records whose release could endanger someone's life or physical safety—remains open.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Milner
Opinion added: Milner
More questions
- What does Exemption 7(F) cover?
- It can cover records collected for law-enforcement purposes when release could reasonably be expected to endanger someone's life or physical safety.
- Why did Justice Breyer disagree?
- He favored keeping a 30-year-old interpretation of Exemption 2, saying appeals courts had repeatedly followed or favorably cited it.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.