Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-481_5426.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

model’s  accuracy  and  utility  increase  significantly  if  it 
includes  a  rival’s  actual  sales  data  rather  than  mere 
estimates.    So  disclosure  of  store-level  SNAP  data  could 
create  a  windfall  for  competitors:  Stores  with  high  SNAP 
redemptions  could  see  increased  competition  for  SNAP 
customers from existing competitors, new market entrants 
could  use  SNAP  data  to  determine  where  to  build  their 
stores,  and  SNAP-redemption  data  could  be  used  to
discern  a  rival  retailer’s  overall  sales  and  develop 
strategies  to  win  some  of  that  business  too.    For  its  part, 
Argus Leader offered no fact witnesses and did not dispute 
that retailers customarily keep this data private or that it 
bears  competitive  significance.    Instead,  the  company 
contended  that  any  competitive  harm  associated  with 
disclosure  would  not  be  substantial.    In  the  end,  the 
district  court  agreed;  while  “[c]ompetition  in  the  grocery
business  is  fierce,”  and  while  the  record  supported  the 
conclusion  that  revealing  store-level  SNAP  data  could 
work some competitive harm, the court could not say that
disclosure  would  rise  to  the  level  of  causing  “substantial 
competitive  harm,”  and  thus  ordered  disclosure.    Argus 
Leader  Media  v.  United  States  Dept.  of  Agriculture,  224 
F. Supp. 3d 827, 833–835 (SD 2016) (emphasis added). 

The  USDA  declined  to  appeal,  but  it  alerted  the 
retailers  who  had  provided  the  data  so  that  they  could 
consider intervening to pursue the case further.  The Food 
Marketing  Institute,  a  trade  association  representing
grocery retailers, answered the call.  It successfully moved
to  intervene  under  Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure  24(a) 
and  then  filed  its  own  appeal.  Meanwhile,  the  USDA 
assured  the  district  court  that  it  would  not  disclose  the 
retailers’ data pending appeal.  Before the Eighth Circuit,
the  Institute  argued  that  the  court  should  discard  the
“substantial competitive harm” test and apply instead the
ordinary  public  meaning  of 
term 
“confidential.”  The  court  rejected  that  argument  and 

statutory 

the