Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-11-05246/USCOURTS-caDC-11-05246-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Judicial Watch, Inc.
Appellant
Social Security Administration
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 2, 2012 Decided December 11, 2012 

No. 11-5246 

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., 

APPELLANT

v. 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 1:06-cv-02034) 

Julie Axelrod argued the cause for appellant. With her on 

the briefs was Paul J. Orfanedes. 

Jane M. Lyons, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause 

for appellee. With her on the brief were Ronald C. Machen 

Jr., U.S. Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. 

Attorney. Fred E. Haynes, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered 

an appearance. 

Before: GARLAND and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and 

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge

KAVANAUGH. 

USCA Case #11-5246 Document #1409292 Filed: 12/11/2012 Page 1 of 3
2 

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: Under U.S. law, 

employers are required to file a Form W-2 for every paid 

employee. The Form W-2 lists the identities of the employer 

and the employee, the amount that an employee has been 

paid, and the taxes that have been withheld by the employer. 

The Social Security Administration processes Forms W-2 for 

the IRS. On occasion, the employee’s name and Social 

Security number as listed on a Form W-2 do not match the 

SSA’s database. When that happens to a sufficient number of 

employees, the SSA sends the employer a “no-match” letter. 

In 2006, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information 

Act request with the SSA. Judicial Watch sought the names 

of the 100 U.S. employers that generated the most no-matches 

from 2001 through 2006. The agency declined to produce 

such records, concluding that they were exempt under FOIA 

Exemption 3. The District Court agreed with the agency. 

We likewise conclude that the records requested by 

Judicial Watch are exempt from disclosure. FOIA Exemption 

3 exempts records that are protected from disclosure by 

another statute. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). Here, the Tax 

Code protects the confidentiality of “return information.” 26 

U.S.C. § 6103(a). Return information is defined to include 

any “data” that is “furnished to” the IRS “with respect to a 

return or with respect to the determination” of tax liability “of 

any person.” Id. § 6103(b)(2). An employer’s identity is 

“data” furnished to the IRS on the Form W-2 with respect to 

the determination of its employees’ taxes. See Landmark 

Legal Foundation v. IRS, 267 F.3d 1132, 1136-37 (D.C. Cir. 

2001). Therefore, the records sought by Judicial Watch 

would disclose “return information” and are protected from 

disclosure by the Tax Code. The records are in turn exempt 

under FOIA. 

USCA Case #11-5246 Document #1409292 Filed: 12/11/2012 Page 2 of 3
3 

Judicial Watch contends, however, that the records fall 

within an exception known as the Haskell Amendment. The 

Haskell Amendment provides that return information “does 

not include data in a form which cannot be associated with, or 

otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular 

taxpayer.” 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b). But the Haskell Amendment 

does not apply here because Judicial Watch seeks data – the 

name of the employer – that can be associated with a 

particular taxpayer, the employer. There is no basis for 

reading the Haskell Amendment to apply only to the 

employees’ identities. The Amendment speaks of “a 

particular taxpayer,” which includes the employer. The 

records sought by Judicial Watch therefore do not fall within 

the exception set forth in the Haskell Amendment. 

* * * 

 We have considered all of Judicial Watch’s arguments. 

We affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

So ordered.

USCA Case #11-5246 Document #1409292 Filed: 12/11/2012 Page 3 of 3