Case Summary
**Case Summary: Argus Leader Media v. Food Marketing Institute**
**Docket Number:** 18-481
**Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
**Argued:** November 26, 2018
**Decided:** June 24, 2019
**Background:**
The case of Argus Leader Media v. Food Marketing Institute revolves around a dispute over the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as it relates to the release of certain government-held documents. Argus Leader Media, a South Dakota-based newspaper, made a FOIA request to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for records related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that included information from grocery store retailers who participated in the program.
The Food Marketing Institute (FMI), which represents the interests of grocery retailers, intervened in the case to argue that the release of this information would harm the retailers' competitive interests. FMI contended that the requested data could reveal sensitive business information and thus should be exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of FOIA, which protects "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential."
**Legal Questions:**
The key legal question in this case was whether the information requested by Argus Leader Media constituted "confidential" commercial information under Exemption 4 of FOIA. This included determining the standard for what counts as “confidential” information and how that standard should be applied in this specific context.
**Decision:**
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court sided with Argus Leader Media in a 6-3 decision. The Court established that to qualify for exemption under Exemption 4, the information must be both customarily and actually regarded as confidential by the provider. The Court clarified that the standard for confidentiality should include information that is kept private by the provider, not merely information that is susceptible to potential competitive harm upon release.
The Court's decision underscored the importance of transparency in government operations and effectively broadened access to government-held information, particularly concerning public spending programs, while also distinguishing between confidentiality and competitive harm in the context of FOIA.
**Impact:**
This ruling set a precedent for how commercial information is treated under FOIA, emphasizing that the mere potential for competitive harm does not automatically grant protection from disclosure. The decision reinforced the principle that public access to information about government programs should be maintained to ensure accountability and transparency.