Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-481_5426.pdf
Page Number: 4

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington,  D. C.  20543,  of  any  typographical  or  other  formal  errors,  in  order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–481 
_________________ 

FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE, PETITIONER v. 
ARGUS LEADER MEDIA, DBA ARGUS LEADER 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

[June 24, 2019] 

JUSTICE GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Congress  has 

instructed  that  the  disclosure  re-
quirements  of  the  Freedom  of  Information  Act  do  “not 
apply”  to  “confidential”  private-sector  “commercial  or 
financial  information”  in  the  government’s  possession.
But  when  does  information  provided  to  a  federal  agency 
qualify  as  “confidential”?  The  Food  Marketing  Institute 
says it’s enough if the owner keeps the information private
rather  than  releasing  it  publicly. 
  The  government 
suggests  that  an  agency’s  promise  to  keep  information 
from  disclosure  may  also  suffice  to  render  it  confidential. 
But the courts below imposed a different requirement yet,
holding that information can never be deemed confidential 
unless  disclosing  it  is  likely  to  result  in  “substantial 
competitive  harm”  to  the  business  that  provided  it. 
Finding  at  least  this  “competitive  harm”  requirement
inconsistent with the terms of the statute, we reverse. 

I 
This  case  began  when  Argus  Leader,  a  South  Dakota
newspaper, filed a FOIA request for data collected by the
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture.  The  USDA