Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/425/352
Timestamp: 2013-05-20 12:56:46
Document Index: 590732326

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 3', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 3', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 806', '§ 3']

DEPARTMENT OF the AIR FORCE et al., Petitioners, v. Michael T. ROSE et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court aboutsearch liibulletin subscribe previews DEPARTMENT OF the AIR FORCE et al., Petitioners, v. Michael T. ROSE et al.
425 U.S. 352 (96 S.Ct. 1592, 48 L.Ed.2d 11)
Argued: Oct. 8, 1975.
Respondents, student editors or former student editors of the New York University Law Review researching disciplinary systems and procedures at the military service academies for an article for the Law Review,
Thereupon respondents brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552 (1970 ed. and Supp. V), in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against petitioners, the Department of the Air Force and Air Force officers who supervise cadets at the United States Air Force Academy (hereinafter collectively the Agency).
The District Courtgranted petitioner Agency's motion for summary judgmentwith out first requiring production of the case summaries for inspectionholding in an unreported opinion that case summaries even with deletions of personal references or other identifying information were "matters . . . related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency," exempted from mandatory disclosure by § 552(b)(2) of the statute.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that § 552(b)(2) did not exempt the case summaries from mandatory disclosure. 2 Cir., 495 F.2d 261 (1974). The Agency argued alternatively, however, that the case summaries constituted "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," exempted from mandatory disclosure by § 552(b)(6). The District Court held this exemption inapplicable to the case summaries, because it concluded that disclosure of the summaries without names or other identifying information would not subject any former cadet to public identification and stigma, and the possibility of identification by another former cadet could not, in the context of the Academy's practice of distribution and official posting of the summaries, constitute an invasion of personal privacy proscribed by § 552(b)(6). Pet. for Cert. 32A. The Court of Appeals disagreed with this approach, stating that it "ignores certain practical realities" which militated against the conclusion "that the Agency's internal dissemination of the summaries lessens the concerned cadets' right to privacy, as embodied in Exemption Six." 2 Cir., 495 F.2d, at 267. But the court refused to hold, on the one hand, either "that (the Agency) is required, without any prior inspection by a court, turn over the summaries to (respondents) with only the proper names removed . . . " or, on the other hand, "that Exemption Six covers all, or any part of, the summaries in issue." Id., at 268. Rather, the Court of Appeals held that because the Agency had not carried its burden in the District Court, imposed by the Act, of "sustain(ing) its action" by means of affidavits or testimony, further inquiry was required, and "the Agency must now produce the summaries themselves in court" for an in camera inspection
Our discussion may conveniently begin by again emphasizing the basic thrust of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (1970 ed. and Supp. V). We canvassed the subject at some length three years ago in EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 79-80, 93 S.Ct. 827, 832, 35 L.Ed.2d 119, 127 (1973), and need only briefly review that history here. The Act revises § 3, the public disclosure section, of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 1002 (1964 ed.). The revision was deemed necessary because "Section 3 was generally recognized as falling far short of its disclosure goals and came to be looked upon more as a withholding statute than a disclosure statute." Mink, supra, at 79, 93 S.Ct. at 832, 35 L.Ed.2d at 127. Congress therefore structured a revision whose basic purpose reflected "a general philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language." S.Rep.No.813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965) (hereinafter S.Rep.No.813). To make crystal clear the congressional objective in the words of the Court of Appeals, "to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny," 495 F.2d, at 263 Congress provided in § 552(c) that nothing in the Act should be read to "authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as specifically stated . . . ." Consistently with that objective, the Act repeatedly states "that official information shall be made available 'to the public,' 'for public inspection.' " Mink, Supra, at 79, 93 S.Ct. at 832, 35 L.Ed.2d at 128. There are, however, exemptions from compelled disclosure. They are nine in number and are set forth in § 552(b). But these limited exemptions do not obscure the basic policy that disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of the Act. "These exemptions are explicitly made exclusive, 5 U.S.C. 552(c) . . . ," Mink, Supra, at 79, 93 S.Ct. at 832, 35 L.Ed.2d at 128, and must be narrowly construed. Vaughn v. Rosen, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 340, 343, 484 F.2d 820, 823 (1973); 173 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 193, 523 F.2d 1136, at 1142 (1975); Soucie v. David, 145 U.S.App.D.C. 144, 157, 448 F.2d 1067, 1080 (1971). In sum, as said in Mink, Supra, 410 U.S. at 80, 93 S.Ct. at 832, 35 L.Ed.2d at 128:
The phrasing of Exemption 2 is traceable to congressional dissatisfaction with the exemption from disclosure under former § 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act of "any matter relating solely to the internal management of an agency." 5 U.S.C. 1002 (1964 ed.). The sweep of that wording led to withholding by agencies from disclosure of matter "rang(ing) from the important to the insignificant." H.R.Rep.No.1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1966) (hereinafter H.R.Rep.No.1497). An earlier effort at minimizing this sweep, S.1666 introduced in the 88th Congress in 1963, applied the "internal management" exemption only to matters required to be published in the Federal Register; agency orders and records were exempted from other public disclosure only when the information related "solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of any agency." The distinction was highlighted in the Senate Report on S.1666 by reference to the latter as the "more tightly drawn" exempting language. S.Rep.No.1219, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 12 (1964).
Those cases relying on the House, rather than the Senate, interpretation of Exemption 2, and permitting agency withholding of matters of some public interest, have done so only where necessary to prevent the circumvention of agency regulations that might result from disclosure to the subjects of regulation of the procedural manuals and guidelines used by the agency in discharging its regulatory function. See, E. g., Tietze v. Richardson, 342 F.Supp. 610 (SD Tex.1972); Cuneo v. Laird, 338 F.Supp. 504 (DC 1972), rev'd on other grounds Sub nom. Cuneo v. Schlesinger, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 484 F.2d 1086 (1973); City of Concord v. Ambrose, 333 F.Supp. 958 (ND Cal.1971) (dictum). Moreover, the legislative history indicates that this was the primary concern of the committee drafting the House Report. See Hearings on H.R. 5012 before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 29-30 (1965), cited in H.R.Rep.No.1497, p. 10 n. 14. We need not consider in this case the applicability of Exemption 2 in such circumstances, however, because, as the Court of Appeals recognized, this is not a case "where knowledge of administrative procedures might help outsiders to circumvent regulations or standards. Release of the (sanitized) summaries, which constitute quasi-legal records, poses no such danger to the effective operation of the Codes at the Academy." 495 F.2d, at 265 (footnote omitted). Indeed, the materials sought in this case are distributed to the subjects of regulation, the cadets, precisely in order to assure their compliance with the known content of the Codes.
We agree with the approach and conclusion of the Court of Appeals. The implication for the general public of the Academy's administration of discipline is obvious, particularly so in light of the unique role of the military. What we have said of the military in other contexts has equal application here: it "constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian," Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 94, 73 S.Ct. 534, 540, 97 L.Ed. 842, 849 (1953), in which the internal law of command and obedience invests the military officer with "a particular position of responsibility." Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 744, 94 S.Ct. 2547, 2556, 41 L.Ed.2d 439, 451 (1974). Within this discipline, the accuracy and effect of a superior's command depends critically upon the specific and customary reliability of subordinates, just as the instinctive obedience of subordinates depends upon the unquestioned specific and customary reliability of the superior.
The importance of these considerations to the maintenance of a force able and ready to fight effectively renders them undeniably significant to the public role of the military. Moreover, the same essential integrity is critical to the military's relationship with its civilian direction. Since the purpose of the Honor and Ethics Codes administered and enforced at the Air Force Academy is to ingrain the ethical reflexes basic to these responsibilities in future Air Force officers, and to select out those candidates apparently unlikely to serve these standards, it follows that the nature of this instruction and its adequacy or inadequacy is significantly related to the substantive public role of the Air Force and its Academy. Indeed, the public's stake in the operation of the Codes as they affect the training of future Air Force officers and their military careers is underscored by the Agency's own proclamations of the importance of cadet-administered Codes to the Academy's educational and training program. Thus, the Court of Appeals said, and we agree:
In sum, we think that, at least where the situation is not one where disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation, Exemption 2 is not applicable to matters subject to such a genuine and significant public interest. The exemption was not designed to authorize withholding of all matters except otherwise secret law bearing directly on the propriety of actions of members of the public. Rather, the general thrust of the exemption is simply to relieve agencies of the burden of assembling and maintaining for public inspection matter in which the public could not reasonably be expected to have an interest.
Both House and Senate Reports can only be read as disclosing a congressional purpose to eschew a blanket exemption for "personnel . . . and similar files" and to require a balancing of interests in either case. Thus the House Report states, H.R.Rep.No.1497, p. 11: "The limitation of a 'clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy' provides a proper balance between the protection of an individual's right of privacy and the preservation of the public's right to Government information by excluding those kinds of files the disclosure of which might harm the individual." Similarly, the Senate Report, S.Rep.No.813, p. 9, states: "The phrase 'clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy' enunciates a policy that will involve a balancing of interests between the protection of an individual's private affairs from unnecessary public scrutiny, and the preservation of the public's right to governmental information."
Plainly Congress did not itself strike the balance as to "personnel files" and confine the courts to striking the balance only as to "similar files." To the contrary, Congress enunciated a single policy, to be enforced in both cases by the courts, "that will involve a balancing" of the private and public interests.
Congress' recent action in amending the Freedom of Information Act to make explicit its agreement with judicial decisions
requiring the disclosure of nonexempt portions of otherwise exempt files is consistent with this conclusion. Thus, 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1970 ed., Supp. V) now provides that "(a)ny reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection."
And § 552(a)(4)(B) (1970 ed., Supp. V) was added explicitly to authorize in camera inspection of matter claimed to be exempt "to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld." (Emphasis supplied.) The Senate Report accompanying this legislation explains, without distinguishing "personnel and medical files" from "similar files," that its effect is to require courts
were nevertheless intended to be subject to mandatory disclosure in redacted form if privacy could be sufficiently protected. As the House Report states, H.R. Rep.No. Sat 11, "The exemption is also intended to cover detailed Government records on an individual which can be identified as applying to that individual and not the facts concerning the award of a pension or benefit or the compilation of unidentified statistical information from personal records." Similarly, the Senate Report emphasized, S.Rep.No.813, at 9, "For example, health, welfare, and selective service records are highly personal to the person involved yet facts concerning the award of a pension or benefit should be disclosed to the public."
it supports the conclusion that they are "similar." Second, and most significantly, the disclosure of these summaries implicates similar privacy values; for as said by the Court of Appeals, 495 F.2d, at 267, "identification of disciplined cadets a possible consequence of even anonymous disclosure could expose the formerly accused men to lifelong embarrassment, perhaps disgrace, as well as practical disabilities, such as loss of employment or friends." See generally, e. g., Wine Hobby USA, Inc. v. IRS, 502 F.2d, at 135-137; Rural Housing Alliance v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 162 U.S.App.D.C., at 125-126, 498 F.2d, at 76-77; Robles v. EPA, 484 F.2d 843, 845-846 (CA4 1973). But these summaries, collected only in the Honor and Ethics Code reading files and the Academy's honor records, do not contain the "vast amounts of personal data," S.Rep.No.813, p. 9, which constitute the kind of profile of an individual ordinarily to be found in his personnel file: showing, for example, where he was born, the names of his parents, where he has lived from time to time, his high school or other school records, results of examinations, evaluations of his work performance. Moreover, access to these files is not drastically limited, as is customarily true of personnel files, only to supervisory personnel directly involved with the individual (apart from the personnel department itself), frequently thus excluding even the individual himself. On the contrary, the case summaries name no names except in guilty cases, are widely disseminated for examination by fellow cadets, contain no facts except such as pertain to the alleged violation of the Honor or Ethics Codes, and are justified by the Academy solely for their value as an educational and instructional tool the better to train military officers for discharge of their important and exacting functions. Documents treated by the Agency in such a manner cannot reasonably be claimed to be within the common and congressional meaning of what constitutes a "personnel file" under Exemption 6.
No court has yet seen the case histories, and the Court of Appeals was therefore correct in holding that the function of examination must be discharged in the first instance by the District Court. Ackerly v. Ley, Supra ; Rural Housing Alliance v. Department of Agriculture, Supra.
Respondents sought only such disclosure as was consistent with this tradition. Their request for access to summaries "with personal references or other identifying information deleted," respected the confidentiality interests embodied in Exemption 6. As the Court of Appeals recognized, however, what constitutes identifying information regarding a subject cadet must be weighed not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who would have been familiar, as fellow cadets or Academy staff, with other aspects of his career at the Academy. Despite the summaries' distribution within the Academy, many of this group with earlier access to summaries may never have identified a particular cadet, or may have wholly forgotten his encounter with Academy discipline. And the risk to the privacy interests of a former cadet, particularly one who has remained in the military, posed by his identification by otherwise unknowing former colleagues or instructors cannot be rejected as trivial. We nevertheless conclude that consideration of the policies underlying the Freedom of Information Act, to open public business to public view when no "clearly unwarranted" invasion of privacy will result, requires affirmance of the holding of the Court of Appeals, 495 F.2d, at 267, that although "no one can guarantee that all those who are 'in the know' will hold their tongues, particularly years later when time may have eroded the fabric of cadet loyalty," it sufficed to protect privacy at this stage in these proceedings by enjoining the District Court, Id., at 268, that if in its opinion deletion of personal references and other identifying information "is not sufficient to safeguard privacy, then the summaries should not be disclosed to (respondents)." We hold, therefore, in agreement with the Court of Appeals, "that the in camera procedure (ordered) will further the statutory goal of Exemption Six: a workable compromise between individual rights 'and the preservation of public rights to Government information.' " Id., at 269.
and exemptions to disclosure under the Act were intended to be practical workable concepts, EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S., at 79, 93 S.Ct. 832, 35 L.Ed.2d at 127; S.Rep.No.813, p. 5; H.R.Rep.No.1497, p. 2. Moreover, we repeat, Exemption 6 does not protect against disclosure every incidental invasion of privacy only such disclosures as constitute "clearly unwarranted" invasions of personal privacy.
The opinions of this Court have long recognized the opprobrium which both the civilian and the military segments of our society attribute to allegations of dishonor among commissioned officers of our Armed Forces. See, E. g., Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 744, 94 S.Ct. 2547, 2556, 41 L.Ed.2d 439, 451 (1974), quoting Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 91, 73 S.Ct. 534, 539, 97 L.Ed. 842, 848 (1953). The stigma which our society imposes on the individual who has accepted such a position of trust
and abused it is not erasable, in any realistic sense, by the passage of time or even by subsequent exemplary conduct. The absence of the broken sword, the torn epaulets, and the Rogue's March from our military ritual does not lessen the indelibility of the stigma. Significantly, cadets and midshipmen "Inchoate officers"
have traditionally been held to the same high standards and subjected to the same stigma as commissioned officers when involved in matters with overtones of dishonor.
Indeed, the mode of punitive separation as the result of court-martial is the same for both officers and cadets dismissal. United States v. Ellman, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 549, 26 C.M.R. 329 (1958). Moreover, as the Court of Appeals noted, it is unrealistic to conclude, in most cases, that a finding of "not guilty" or "discretion" exonerates the cadet in anything other than the purely technical and legal sense of the term.
Admittedly, the Court requires that, before release, these documents be subject to In camera inspection with power of excising parts. But, as the Court admits, any such attempt to "sanitize" these summaries would still leave the very distinct possibility that the individual would still be identifiable and thereby injured. In light of Congress' recent manifest concern in the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a (1970 ed., Supp. V), for "governmental respect for the privacy of citizens . . . ," S.Rep.No.93-1183 p. 1 (1974) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 1974, p. 6916, it is indeed difficult to attribute to Congress a willingness to subject an individual citizen to the risk of possible severe damage to his reputation simply to permit law students to invade individual privacy to prepare a law journal article. Its definition of a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" as equated with "protect(ing) an individual's private affairs from unnecessary public scrutiny . . . ," S.Rep.No.813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1965) (emphasis supplied), would otherwise be rendered meaningless.
(2) Moreover, excision would not only be ineffectual in accomplishing the legislative intent of protecting an individual's affairs from unnecessary public scrutiny, but it would place an intolerable burden upon a district court which, in my view, Congress never intended to inflict. Although the 1974 amendments to the Freedom of Information Act require that "(a)ny reasonably segregable portion of a record . . . ," 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1970 ed., Supp. V), otherwise exempt, be provided, there is nothing in the legislative history of the original Act or its amendments which would require a district court to construct, in effect, a new document. Yet, the excision process mandated here could only require such a sweeping reconstruction of the material that the end product would constitute an entirely new document. No provision of the Freedom of Information Act contemplates a federal district judge acting as a "rewrite editor" of the original material.
We are here concerned with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (1970 ed. and Supp. V) and with two of the exemptions provided by § 552(b). The Court in the very recent past has not hesitated consistently to provide force to the congressionally mandated exemptions. See FAA Administrator v. Robertson, 422 U.S. 255, 95 S.Ct. 2140, 45 L.Ed.2d 164 (1975); Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft, 421 U.S. 8, 95 S.Ct. 1491, 44 L.Ed.2d 57 (1975); NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975); EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 93 S.Ct. 827, 35 L.Ed.2d 119 (1973). See also Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 94 S.Ct. 1028, 39 L.Ed.2d 123 (1974). Today, I fear, the Court does just the opposite.
Upon respondent Rose's request for documents, Academy officials gave him copies of the Honor Code, the Honor Reference Manual, Lesson Plans, Honor Hearing Procedures, and various other materials explaining the Honor and Ethics Codes. They denied him access to the case summaries, however, on the grounds that even with the names deleted "(s)ome cases may be recognized by the reader by the circumstances alone without the identity of the cadet given" and "(t)here is no way of determining just how these facts will be or could be used." App. 21, 155. On appeal to the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary, by letter from his Administrative Assistant, refused disclosure of the case summaries on the ground that they were exempted from disclosure by Exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6), and by Air Force Regulations 12-30, PP 4(f) and 4(g)(1)(b), 32 CFR §§ 806.5(f), (g)(1)(ii) (1974), App. 21, 121-122.
The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (1970 ed. and Supp. V), provides in pertinent part:
Respondents also sought access to a complete study of resignations of Academy graduates from the Air Force. The Agency claimed that the study was exempted from disclosure by 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5), concerning "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency." The District Court held that since the study had already been offered for dissemination to the public the Agency had waived its rights under the exemption, and accordingly it granted respondents partial summary judgment, requiring the Agency to disclose the complete study to respondents. Pet. for Cert. 35A-38A. The Agency complied with this order.
E.g., Vaughn v. Rosen, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 340, 345, 484 F.2d 820, 825 (1973); Soucie v. David, 145 U.S.App.D.C. 144, 156, 448 F.2d 1067, 1079 (1971); Bristol-Myers Co. v. FTC, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 26, 424 F.2d 935, 938-939 (1970). Accord, Rural Housing Alliance v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 122, 126-127, 498 F.2d 73, 78 (1974). Cf. 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (2)(C) (1970 ed., Supp. V) providing:
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) (1970 ed., Supp. V). One of the prime shortcomings of § 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act, in the view of the Congress which passed the Freedom of Information Act, was precisely that it provided no judicial remedy for the unauthorized withholding of agency records. EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 93 S.Ct. at 832, 35 L.Ed.2d at 127 (1973).
Article 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 933, states, for example: "Any commissioned officer, Cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." (Emphasis supplied.)