Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-481_5426.pdf
Page Number: 9

6  FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE v. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA 

Opinion of the Court 

Dictionary 158 (1960) (“told in confidence”). 

that 

Must both of these conditions be met for information to 
be  considered  confidential  under  Exemption  4?    At  least 
the  first  condition  has  to  be;  it  is  hard  to  see  how 
information  could  be  deemed  confidential  if  its  owner 
shares  it  freely.  And  there’s  no  question  that  the
Institute’s  members  satisfy  this  condition;  uncontested 
testimony  established 
the  Institute’s  retailers 
customarily do not disclose store-level SNAP data or make
it  publicly  available  “in  any  way.”    See,  e.g.,  App.  93–94. 
Even  within  a  company,  witnesses  testified,  only  small
groups  of  employees  usually  have  access  to  it.    But  what 
about the second condition: Can privately held information 
lose its confidential character for purposes of Exemption 4
if it’s communicated to the government without assurances 
that  the  government  will  keep  it  private?  As  it  turns 
out,  there’s  no  need  to  resolve  that  question  in  this  case 
because  the  retailers  before  us  clearly  satisfy  this 
condition  too. 
induce  retailers  to 
participate in SNAP and provide store-level information it 
finds  useful  to  its  adminstration  of  the  program,  the
government has long promised them that it will keep their 
information private.  See, e.g., 43 Fed. Reg. 43275 (1978);
see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 27–30. 

Presumably  to 

Early  courts  of  appeals  confronting  Exemption  4 
interpreted  its  terms  in  ways  consistent  with  these 
understandings.  In  GSA  v.  Benson,  415  F. 2d  878,  881 
(1969),  for  example,  the  Ninth  Circuit  concluded  that 
Exemption  4  would  “ ‘protect  information  that  a  private 
individual  wishes  to  keep  confidential  for  his  own 
purposes, but reveals to the government under the express 
or  implied  promise’ ”  of  confidentiality.  The  D. C.  Circuit 
similarly  held  that  Exemption  4  covered  sales  documents
“ ‘which  would  customarily  not  be  released  to  the  public’ ” 
and  which  the  government  “agreed  to  treat  . . .  as 
confidential.”    Sterling  Drug  Inc.  v.  FTC,  450  F. 2d  698,