Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-481_5426.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

v.  Wyeth  LLC,  562  U. S.  223,  233–235.    Alternatively,  the  company 
suggests  that  Congress  effectively  ratified  its  understanding  of  the 
term  “confidential”  by  enacting  similar  phrases  in  other  statutes  in 
the years since National Parks was decided.  But the ratification canon 
applies  when  Congress  re-enacts  the  same  statute  using  the  same 
language, and Congress has never re-enacted Exemption 4.  Finally, 
Argus  Leader  urges  the  Court  to  adopt  a  “substantial  competitive
harm” requirement as a matter of policy because it believes FOIA ex-
emptions should be narrowly construed.  But the Court cannot arbi-
trarily constrict Exemption 4 by adding limitations found nowhere in 
its terms.  Pp. 10–12.

 889 F. 3d 914, reversed and remanded. 

GORSUCH, J., delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined.  BREYER, 
J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which 
GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.