Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/105292/baldrige-vs-shapiro
Timestamp: 2016-12-09 20:40:23
Document Index: 375749827

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 141', '§ 21', '§ 552', '§ 8', '§ 552', '§ 9', '§ 552', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 2', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 9', '§ 7', '§ 21', '§ 30', '§ 11', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 9', '§ 8', '§ 25', '§ 3', '§ 8']

Baldrige Vs Shapiro - Citation 105292 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize Baldrige Vs. Shapiro - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/105292CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnFeb-24-1982Case Number455 U.S. 345AppellantBaldrigeRespondentShapiroExcerpt:
baldrige v. shapiro - 455 u.s. 345 (1982)
these cases present the question whether lists of addresses collected and utilized by the bureau of the census are exempt from disclosure, either by way of civil discovery or the freedom of information act (foia), under the confidentiality provisions of the census act, 13 u.s.c. §§ 8 and 9. section 8(b) allows the secretary of commerce to reveal statistical materials "which do not disclose the information reported by, or on behalf of,..... Judgment:
1. The requested information in No. 80-1436 is not subject to disclosure under the FOIA. Pp.
(a) To stimulate public cooperation necessary for an accurate census -- providing a basis for apportioning Representatives among the states in Congress, serving an important function in the allocation of federal grants to states based on population, and also providing important data for Congress and ultimately for the private sector -- Congress has provided assurances that information furnished by individuals is to be treated as confidential. Title 13 U.S.C. §§ 8(b) and 9(a) explicitly provide for nondisclosure of certain census data, and no discretion is provided to the Census Bureau on whether or not to disclose such data. Thus, §§ 8(b) and 9(a) qualify as withholding statutes under Exemption 3 of the FOIA. Pp.
455 U. S. 353
(b) The unambiguous language of the confidentiality provisions of the Census Act -- focusing on the "information" or "data" that constitutes the statistical computation -- as well as the Act's legislative history, indicates that Congress contemplated that raw data reported by or on behalf of individuals, not just the identity of the individuals, was to be held confidential, and not available for disclosure. The master address list sought by Essex County is part of the raw census data intended by Congress to be protected under the Act. And under the Act's clear language, it is not relevant that municipalities seeking data will use it only for statistical purposes. Pp.
455 U. S. 355
2. Nor is the requested information in No. 80-1781 subject to disclosure under the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 26(b)(1), if requested information is privileged, it may be withheld even if relevant to the lawsuit and essential to the establishment of plaintiff's claim. A privilege may be created by statute, and the strong policy of nondisclosure under the confidentiality provisions of the Census Act indicates that Congress intended such provisions to constitute a "privilege" within the meaning of the Federal Rules. Pp.
455 U. S. 360
] Congress has delegated to the Secretary of Commerce the duty to conduct the decennial census, 13 U.S.C. § 141; the Secretary, in turn, has delegated this function to the Bureau of the Census. 13 U.S.C. § 21.
The 1980 enumeration conducted by the Bureau of the Census indicated that Essex County, N.J., which includes the city of Newark, and Denver, Colo., among other areas, had lost population during the 1970's. This information was conveyed to the appropriate officials in both Essex County and Denver. Under Bureau procedures, a city has 10 working days from receipt of the preliminary counts to challenge the accuracy of the census data. [
] Both Essex County and Denver challenged the census count under the local review procedures. Both proceeded on the theory that the Bureau had erroneously classified occupied dwellings as vacant, and both sought to compel disclosure of a portion of the address lists used by the Bureau in conducting its count in their respective jurisdictions.
The Essex County Executive filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to compel the Bureau to release the "master address" register under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. [
] The master address register is a listing of such information as addresses, householders' names, number of housing units, type of census inquiry, and, where applicable, the vacancy status of the unit. The list was compiled initially from commercial mailing address lists and census postal checks, and was updated further through direct responses to census questionnaires, pre- and post-enumeration canvassing by census personnel, and, in some instances, by a cross-check with the 1970 census data. The Bureau resisted disclosure of the master address list, arguing that 13 U.S.C. §§ 8(b) and 9(a) prohibit disclosure of all raw census data pertaining to particular individuals, including addresses. The Bureau argued that it therefore could lawfully withhold the information under the FOIA pursuant to Exemption 3, which provides that the FOIA does not apply where information is specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3).
App. to Pet. for Cert. 10a. The court noted that Essex County did not seek access to individual census reports or information relative to particular individuals, but sought access to the address list exclusively for statistical purposes in conjunction with the Bureau's own program of local review. In addition, the Secretary is authorized by the Census Act to utilize county employees if they are sworn to observe the limitations of the statute. The District Court concluded that the Bureau's claim of confidentiality impeded the goal of accurate and complete enumeration. Finally, the District Court found that the information sought was not derived from the questionnaires received, but rather from data available prior to the census. The District Court ordered the Bureau to make available the address register of all property in the county, with the proviso that all persons using the records be sworn to secrecy. [
] The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed for the reasons stated by the District Court. App. to Pet. for Cert. 1a. Judgment order reported at 636 F.2d 1210 (1980).
The city of Denver, through its officials, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado seeking a preliminary injunction to require the Bureau to cooperate with the city in verifying its vacancy data. [
District Court did not rule on the preliminary injunction, but instead focused on whether the city of Denver was entitled to the vacancy information contained in the updated master address registers maintained by the Bureau. The District Court granted the city of Denver's discovery request for this information. The court concluded that the city should have access to the information because, without the address list, the city was denied any meaningful ability to challenge the Bureau's data. In light of what it deemed the important constitutional and statutory rights involved, the District Court concluded that the purposes of § 9 of the Census Act could be maintained without denying the city the right of discovery. The District Court entered a detailed order to protect the confidentiality of the information. [
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. 644 F.2d 844 (1981). The Court of Appeals relied on the "express language", of the statute and on the "
emphatically expressed intent of Congress to protect census information.'"
at 845, quoting
Seymour v. Barabba,
Thus, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ordered disclosure of the master address list under the FOIA. App. to Pet. for Cert. 1a. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied discovery of similar information, concluding that the data was privileged from disclosure. 644 F.2d 844 (1981). We granted certiorari in these cases to determine whether such information is to be disclosed under either of the requested procedures. 451 U.S. 936 (1981);
The broad mandate of the FOIA is to provide for open disclosure of public information. [
] The Act expressly recognizes, however, that public disclosure is not always in the public interest, and consequently provides that agency records may be withheld from disclosure under any one of the nine exemptions defined in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Under Exemption 3 disclosure need not be made as to information "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute" if the statute affords the agency no discretion on disclosure, or establishes particular criteria for withholding the data, or refers to the
particular types of material to be withheld. The question in
No. 80-1436, is two-fold: first, do §§ 8(b) and 9(a) of the Census Act constitute a statutory exception to disclosure within the meaning of Exemption 3; and second, is the requested data included within the protection of §§ 8(b) and 9(a).
Although the national census mandated by Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution fulfills many important and valuable functions for the benefit of the country as a whole, its initial constitutional purpose was to provide a basis for apportioning representatives among the states in the Congress. [
] The census today serves an important function in the allocation of federal grants to states based on population. In addition, the census also provides important data for Congress, and ultimately for the private sector. [
Sections 8(b) and 9(a) explicitly provide for the nondisclosure of certain census data. No discretion is provided to the Census Bureau on whether or not to disclose the information referred to in §§ 8(b) and 9(a). Sections 8(b) and 9(a) of the Census Act therefore qualify as withholding statutes under Exemption 3. [
] Raw census data is protected under the §§ 8(b) and 9(a) exemptions, however, only to the extent that the data is within the confidentiality provisions of the Act.
Essex County and various
vigorously argue that §§ 8(b) and 9(a) of the Census Act are designed to prohibit disclosure of the identities of individuals who provide raw census data; for this reason, they argue, the confidentiality provisions protect raw data only if the individual respondent can be identified. The unambiguous language of the confidentiality provisions, as well as the legislative history of the Act, however, indicates that Congress plainly contemplated that raw data reported by or on behalf of individuals was to be held confidential and not available for disclosure.
We begin first with the language of §§ 8(b) and 9(a).
(1981). Section 8(b) allows the Secretary to provide statistical materials "which do not disclose
reported by, or on behalf of, any particular respondent. . . ." (Emphasis added.) The focus of § 9(a) is also on the information that constitutes the statistical compilation. The Secretary is prohibited from using the "information" except for statistical purposes, and is prohibited from publication "whereby the
furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified. . . ." (Emphasis added.)
The legislative history also makes clear that Congress was concerned not solely with protecting the identity of individuals. Since 1879, Congress has expressed its concern that confidentiality of data reported by individuals also be preserved. At that time, each census taker was required by law to take an oath "not [to] disclose any information contained in the schedules, lists, or statements." Act of Mar. 3, 1879, ch.195, § 7, 20 Stat. 475, and Act of Apr. 20, 1880, ch. 57, 21 Stat. 75. [
] As a result of the detailed questions asked in the 1880 and 1890 censuses, Congress amended the Census Act
to broaden the confidentiality protections. Act of Mar. 3, 1899, ch. 419, § 21, 30 Stat. 1020. The law restricted disclosure unless the Director of the Census authorized that the information be revealed. The governor of any state or the chief officer of any municipal government, upon request, however, could receive a list of individuals counted within the territory of the jurisdiction. § 30, 30 Stat. 1021. The Director of the Census frequently was asked to disclose information to cities complaining of undercounts. For example, data was revealed to New York City after the 1890 census in order to allow the city to challenge the accuracy of the federal count. House Committee on the Eleventh Census, Reenumeration of New York City, 51st Cong., 2d Sess. (1890).
Decennial Census at 113-138.
1929, ch. 28, § 11, 46 Stat. 25. The amendment gave the Director of the Census no discretion to release data, regardless of the claimed beneficial effect of disclosure. The confidentiality provisions extended to all information collected by the Bureau of the Census. Decennial Census at 116. No special access was granted to states or municipalities. In 1976, the confidentiality provision of § 8 was strengthened "to add further protection of privacy" by prohibiting disclosure of information "reported by, or on behalf of, any respondent." S.Rep. No. 94-1256, pp. 4 (1976).
H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 94-1719, p. 10 (1976). The prohibitions of disclosure of "material which might disclose information reported by, or on behalf of, any respondent" extend both to "public and private entities," S.Rep. No. 94-1256,
at 4, further indicating that the municipalities requesting disclosure of raw census data have no special claim to the information.
The foregoing history of the Census Act reveals a congressional intent to protect the confidentiality of census information by prohibiting disclosure of raw census data reported by or on behalf of individuals. Subsequent congressional action is consistent with this interpretation. In response to claimed undercounts in the census of 1960 and of 1970, Congress considered, but ultimately rejected, proposals to allow local officials limited access to census data in order to challenge the census count.
H.R. 8871, 95 Cong., 1st Sess. (1977); Hearings on H.R. 8871 before the Subcommittee on Census and Population of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977).
A list of vacant addresses is part of the raw census data -- the information -- intended by Congress to be protected. The list of addresses requested by the County of Essex constitutes "information reported by, or on behalf of," individuals responding to the census. The initial list of addresses is taken from prior censuses and mailing lists. This information then is verified both by direct mailings and census enumerators who go to areas not responding.
Under the clear language of the Census Act, it is not relevant that the municipalities seeking the data will use it only for statistical purposes. Section 9(a)(1) permits use of the data only for "the statistical purposes for which it is supplied." There is no indication in the Census Act that the hundreds of municipal governments in the 50 states were intended by Congress to be the "monitors" of the Census Bureau. [
] In addition, limiting use of data only for "statistical" purposes in no way indicates that raw data may be revealed outside the strict requirements of the Census Act that data be handled by census employees sworn to secrecy. [
The discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, similar to the FOIA, are designed to encourage open exchange of information by litigants in federal courts. Unlike the FOIA, however, the discovery provisions under the Federal Rules focus upon the need for the information, rather than a broad statutory grant of disclosure. [
] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides for access to all information "relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action" unless the information is privileged. If a privilege exists, information may be withheld, even if relevant to the lawsuit and essential to the establishment of plaintiff's claim.
It is well recognized that a privilege may be created by statute. [
] A statute granting a privilege is to be strictly construed so as "to avoid a construction that would suppress otherwise competent evidence."
368 U. S. 208
368 U. S. 218
(1961). In the case of the city of Denver, the central inquiry is whether §§ 8(b) and 9(a) create a privilege so as to protect against disclosure of the raw census data requested. [
As noted above, § 8(b) and § 9(a) of the Census Act embody explicit congressional intent to preclude all disclosure of raw census data reported by or on behalf of individuals. This strong policy of nondisclosure indicates that Congress intended the confidentiality provisions to constitute a "privilege" within the meaning of the Federal Rules. Disclosure by way of civil discovery would undermine the very purpose of confidentiality contemplated by Congress. One such purpose was to encourage public participation and maintain public confidence that information given to the Census Bureau would not be disclosed. The general public, whose cooperation is essential for an accurate census, would not be concerned with the underlying rationale for disclosure of data that had been accumulated under assurances of confidentiality. Congress concluded in §§ 8(b) and 9(a) that only a bar on disclosure of all raw data reported by or on behalf of individuals would serve the function of assuring public confidence. This was within congressional discretion, for Congress is vested by the Constitution with authority to conduct the census "as they shall by Law direct." [
] The wisdom of its classifications is not for us to decide in light of Congress' 180 years' experience with the census process.
* Together with No. 80-1781,
McNichols, Mayor of Denver, et al. v. Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce, et al.,
on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Revised Local Review Program Information Booklet (Apr.1980), App. in No. 80-1436, pp. 22-48.
This principle has been reiterated frequently by this Court.
See, e.g., Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Education Project,
454 U. S. 139
The information obtained from the national census is used for such varied purposes as computing federal grant-in-aid benefits, drafting of legislation, urban and regional planning, business planning, and academic and social studies.
Subcommittee on Census and Population of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, The Use of Population Data in Federal Assistance Programs, Ser. No. 95-16 (Committee Print compiled by the Library of Congress 1978); S.Rep. No. 94-1256, p. 1 (1976).
13 The Papers of James Madison 8-9 (C. Hobson & R. Rutland eds.1981) (Debate of Jan. 25, 1790). A bill for obtaining information as described by Mr. Madison passed the House of Representatives, but "was thrown out by the Senate as a waste of trouble and supplying materials for idle people to make a book." Letter to Thomas Jefferson,
Respondent Shapiro does not dispute this conclusion.
Brief for Respondent in No. 80-1436, p. 8. The legislative history of the FOIA clearly indicates that Congress recognized that the Census Act constituted a specific exemption under Exemption 3.
S.Rep. No. 1621, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 9 (1958); 104 Cong.Rec. 6549-6550 (1958) (remarks of Rep. Moss); 112 Cong.Rec. 13646 (1966) (remarks of Rep. Olsen) ("information . . . or sources of information" given to the Bureau of the Census will be held confidential under Exemption 3); H.R.Rep. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966); 122 Cong.Rec. 24211 (1976) (remarks of Reps. Abzug and McCloskey).
Concern for confidentiality in census taking was expressed as early as the 1840 census, in which each census enumerator was instructed to "consider all communications made to him in the performance of [his] duty, relative to the business of the people, as strictly confidential." Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Federal Services of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, The Decennial Census: An Analysis and Review, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., 113 (Committee Print compiled by the Library of Congress 1980) (hereinafter Decennial Census).
A. Scott, Census, U.S.A. 29 (1968). The 1870 census instructions emphatically stated that "[a]ll disclosures should be treated as strictly confidential, with the exception hereafter to be noted in the case of the mortality schedule. . . ." Decennial Census at 114. The 1909 revisions of the Census Act stated that "[n]o publication shall be made by the Census Office whereby the
furnished by any particular establishment can be identified. . . ." Act of July 2, 1909, ch. 2, § 25, 36 Stat. 9 (emphasis added).
Act of Apr. 2, 1924, ch. 80, § 3, 43 Stat. 31; Act of June 18, 1929, ch. 28, § 8, 46 Stat. 23; Act of July 25, 1947, ch. 331, 61 Stat. 458; Act of Aug. 31, 1954, Pub.L. 740, 68 Stat. 1013-1014; Act of Oct. 15, 1962, Pub.L. 87-813, 76 Stat. 922 (overriding decision in
(1961), by prohibiting disclosure of copy of census report retained by business establishment).
For a more detailed history of the provisions of confidentiality,
C. Kaplan & T. Van Valey, Census '80: Continuing the Factfinder Tradition 68-71 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1980).
Recognition of the need for some degree of confidentiality of census materials is indicated in the confidentiality provisions of several foreign nations. Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, and Sweden make some provision for the confidentiality of census materials.
Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Laws on the Confidentiality of Census Records in Western Europe, Canada, and Japan, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (Committee Print compiled by the Library of Congress 1976).
Approximately 50 lawsuits have been brought by local governments claiming an undercount from the 1980 census.
See, e.g., In re 1980 Decennial Census Adjustment Litigation,
506 F.Supp. 648 (J.P.M.D.L.1981);
653 F.2d 732 (CA2),
cert. pending sub nom. Carey v. Baldrige,
The primary purpose of the FOIA was not to benefit private litigants or to serve as a substitute for civil discovery.
421 U. S. 143
, n. 10 (1975);
Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co.,
Most courts have concluded that an FOIA exemption does not automatically constitute a "privilege" within the meaning of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See, e.g., Frankel v. SEC,
460 F.2d 813, 818 (CA2 1972) (information exempt under FOIA may be obtained through discovery if party's need for information exceeds Government's need for confidentiality).
Toran, Information Disclosure in Civil Actions: The Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Discovery Rules, 49 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 843, 848-854 (1981).
[e]xcept as otherwise required by
the Constitution of the United States or provided by
. . . , the privilege of a witness . . . [or] government . . . shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience."
It is not unlikely that, while checking the Bureau vacancy figures, the city of Denver would speak to individuals who had supplied vacancy data to the Bureau. Even though the city might not be able to identify the individuals who originally gave the information, there would nonetheless be the
that confidentiality had been breached.
Congress has several times rejected proposals designed to assure availability of census records to historians and other legitimate researchers.
S. 3279, H.R. 10686, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976).