Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-481_5426.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4  FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE v. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA 

Opinion of the Court 

affirmed.  We  granted  the  Institute  a  stay  of  the  Eighth
Circuit’s  mandate  and,  later,  its  petition  for  certiorari. 
585 U. S. ___ (2018); 586 U. S. ___ (2019). 

II 
Before  turning  to  the  merits,  we  confront  a  threshold
challenge  to  our  jurisdiction:  Argus  Leader  questions
whether the Institute has standing to pursue this appeal. 
To  show  standing  under  Article  III,  an  appealing  litigant 
must  demonstrate  that  it  has  suffered  an  actual  or 
imminent injury that is “fairly traceable” to the judgment
below  and  that  could  be  “redress[ed]  by  a  favorable 
ruling.”  Monsanto  Co.  v.  Geertson  Seed  Farms,  561  U. S. 
139, 149–150 (2010). 

The Institute satisfies each of these criteria.  Whether or 
not  disclosure  of  the  contested  data  would  cause  its 
member  retailers  “substantial  competitive  harm,”  the
record  before  us  reveals  (and  Argus  Leader  does  not 
meaningfully  dispute)  that  disclosure  likely  would  cause 
them  some  financial  injury.  As  the  Eighth  Circuit 
observed, the grocery industry is “highly competitive,” and 
disclosure  of  store-level  SNAP  data  likely  would  help
competitors  win  business  from  the  Institute’s  members. 
889 F. 3d, at 916.  This concrete injury is, as well, directly 
traceable  to  the  judgment  ordering  disclosure.  And  a 
favorable  ruling  from  this  Court  would  redress  the 
retailers’ injury by reversing that judgment.

Argus  Leader  insists  that  the  Institute’s  injury  is  not 
redressable  because  a  favorable  ruling  would  merely 
restore  the  government’s  discretion  to  withhold  the 
requested  data  under  Exemption  4,  and  it  might  just  as
  But  the 
easily  choose  to  provide  the  data  anyway.
that, 
government  has 
consistent  with 
longstanding  policy  and  past
assurances  of  confidentiality  to  retailers,  it  “will  not 
disclose”  the  contested  data  unless  compelled  to  do  so  by 

represented  unequivocally 

its