Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-481_5426.pdf
Page Number: 10

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

709  (1971);  see  also  Grumman  Aircraft  Eng.  Corp.  v. 
Renegotiation  Bd.,  425  F. 2d  578,  580,  582  (1970)
(information a private party “submitted ‘in confidence’ ” or
“would  not  reveal  to  the  public  [is]  exempt  from 
disclosure”). 

B 
Notably  lacking  from  dictionary  definitions,  early  case
law, or any other usual source that might shed light on the
is  any  mention  of  the 
statute’s  ordinary  meaning 
“substantial competive harm” requirement that the courts
below  found  unsatisfied  and  on  which  Argus  Leader  pins
its  hopes. 
Indeed,  when  called  on  some  years  ago  to
interpret  the  similar  phrase  “information  furnished  by  a
confidential 
7(D),
§552(b)(7)(D), this Court looked, as we do now, to “common 
usage”  and  never  suggested  that  the  government  must
prove  that  the  disclosure  of  a  source’s  information  would
result  in  substantial  harm.    Department  of  Justice  v. 
Landano, 508 U. S. 165, 173–174 (1993). 

in  FOIA  Exemption 

source” 

So  where  did  the  “substantial  competitive  harm” 
requirement  come  from? 
In  1974,  the  D. C.  Circuit 
declared that, in addition to the requirements actually set
forth in Exemption 4, a “court must also be satisfied that 
non-disclosure is justified by the legislative purpose which 
underlies the exemption.”  National Parks & Conservation 
Assn.  v.  Morton,  498  F. 2d  765,  767.    Then,  after  a 
selective  tour  through  the  legislative  history,  the  court 
is 
concluded  that  “commercial  or 
‘confidential’ [only] if disclosure of the information is likely 
. . .  (1)  to  impair  the  Government’s  ability  to  obtain
necessary  information  in  the  future;  or  (2)  to  cause 
substantial harm to the competitive position of the person 
from  whom  the  information  was  obtained.”  Id.,  at  770. 
Without much independent analysis, a number of courts of
appeals eventually fell in line and adopted variants of the 

financial  matter