Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-481_5426.pdf
Page Number: 16

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

1 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

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  BREYER,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GINSBURG  and 
JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR join, concurring in part and dissent-
ing in part. 

The  Freedom  of  Information  Act  (FOIA)  requires  the 
government  to  make  information  available  to  the  public 
upon request.  5 U. S. C. §552(a)(3)(A).  It also contains a 
list of exemptions.  §552(b).  Exemption 4 says that the Act 
does  “not  apply”  to  “commercial  or  financial  information
obtained  from  a  person  and  . . .  confidential.”    §552(b)(4).
The  majority  holds  that  “commercial  or  financial  infor-
mation” is “confidential” and consequently falls within the
scope  of  this  exemption  “[a]t  least”  where  it  is  “[1]  both 
customarily  and  actually  treated  as  private  by  its  owner 
and [2] provided to the government under an assurance of 
privacy.”  Ante, at 11.  The majority spells out two condi-
tions,  but  in  my  view  there  is  a  third:  Release  of  such 
information must also cause genuine harm to the owner’s
economic or business interests. 

Since 1974, when the District of Columbia Circuit decided 
National  Parks  and  Conservation  Assn.  v.  Morton,  498 
F. 2d 765, nearly every lower court has imposed some kind
of harm requirement.  See New Hampshire Right to Life v. 
Department  of  Health  and  Human  Servs.,  577  U. S.  ___, 
___  (2015)  (THOMAS,  J.,  dissenting  from  denial  of  certio-
rari) (slip op., at 3) (noting that “every Court of Appeals to