Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media
In brief
The Court overturned the Eighth Circuit's ruling (reversed), sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), and adopted a privacy-based test for Exemption 4.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · June 24, 2019 · Opinion by Justice Gorsuch
- What it’s about
- This case asked whether the government had to release store-by-store SNAP redemption data in response to a FOIA request, or whether that business information was protected from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4.
- Who it affects
- The decision focused Exemption 4 on whether an owner normally keeps business information private in practice and gives it to the government with a privacy promise, rather than requiring proof that disclosure would seriously hurt competition.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court held that business information is "confidential" under Exemption 4 when it is normally kept private and was given to the government with an assurance of privacy.
FOIA favors public access, while Exemption 4 can protect certain private business information.
Question presented
1. Does the statutory term "confidential" in FOIA Exemption 4 bear its ordinary meaning, thus requiring the Government to withhold all "commercial or financial information" that is confidentially held and not publicly disseminated-regardless of whether a party establishes substantial competitive harm from disclosure-which would resolve at least five circuit splits? 2. Alternatively, if the Court retains the substantial-competitive-harm test, is that test satisfied when the requested information could be potentially useful to a competitor (as the First and Tenth Circuits have held), or must the party opposing disclosure establish with near certainty a defined competitive harm like lost market share (as the Ninth and D.C. Circuits have held, and as the Eighth Circuit required here)?
What the Court decided
Holding
The Institute has standing to appeal. Disclosure of the contested data would cause its members some financial injury in the highly competitive grocery industry; this concrete injury is directly traceable to the judgment ordering disclosure; and a favorable ruling from this Court would redress the retailers’ injury by reversing that judgment.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
From the opinions
“Release of such information must also cause genuine harm to the owner’s economic or business interests.”
What's next
The case goes back to the lower court to apply the Supreme Court's privacy test. This ruling did not settle whether the SNAP data would ultimately be released.
Why it matters
Because the case was sent back, this ruling did not settle whether the data would ultimately be released.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Show 3 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Reply
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What was Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media about?
- It concerned whether the government had to release store-by-store SNAP redemption data or could keep it private under FOIA Exemption 4.
- What did the Supreme Court decide about confidential business information?
- It said information is confidential when its owner normally and actually treats it as private. The owner must also give it to the government under a promise of privacy.
- What happened to the Eighth Circuit's ruling?
- The Court overturned it (reversed) and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).
- How did the ruling change FOIA Exemption 4?
- It focused on whether owners kept information private and gave it to the government under a privacy promise, not whether disclosure would hurt competition.
- What happens next in the Food Marketing Institute case?
- The case goes back to the lower court to apply the Supreme Court's privacy test. The ruling did not settle whether the SNAP data was ultimately released.
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.