Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-481_5426.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2018 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

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

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

No. 18–481.  Argued April 22, 2019—Decided June 24, 2019 

Respondent  Argus  Leader  Media  filed  a  Freedom  of  Information  Act 
(FOIA)  request  with  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture 
(USDA),  seeking  the  names  and  addresses  of  all  retail  stores  that 
participate  in  the  national  food-stamp  program—known  as  the  Sup-
plemental  Nutrition  Assistance  Program  (SNAP)—and  each  store’s 
annual  SNAP  redemption  data  from  fiscal  years  2005  to  2010.   The 
USDA  declined  to  disclose  the  store-level  SNAP  data,  invoking 
FOIA’s Exemption 4, which shields from disclosure “trade secrets and
commercial or financial information obtained from a person and priv-
ileged  or  confidential,”  5  U. S. C.  §552(b)(4).    Argus  Leader  sued  the 
USDA.  Following circuit precedent, the District Court employed the
“competitive harm” test, under which commercial information cannot 
be deemed “confidential” unless disclosure is “likely . . . to cause sub-
stantial  harm  to  the  competitive  position  of  the  person  from  whom 
the  information  was  obtained.”    The  court  agreed  that  revealing 
store-level  SNAP  data  could  work  some  competitive  harm,  but  it 
could  not  say  that  disclosure  would  cause  “substantial  competitive 
harm,” and thus ordered disclosure.  Petitioner Food Marketing Insti-
tute,  a  trade  association  representing  grocery  retailers,  intervened 
and filed an appeal.  The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the Insti-
tute’s  argument  that  the  court  should  discard  the  “substantive  com-
petitive  harm”  test  in  favor  of  the  ordinary  public  meaning  of  the 
statutory term “confidential.” 

Held: 

1. The Institute has standing to appeal.  Disclosure of the contested 
data  would  cause  its  members  some  financial  injury  in  the  highly 
competitive grocery industry; this concrete injury is directly traceable