Document: 533 U.S. 678121 S.Ct. 2491150 L.Ed.2d 653 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND BUREAU INDIAN AFFAIRS, PETITIONERSv.KLAMATH WATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION No. 99-1871. SUPREME COURT UNITED STATES Argued January 10, 2001 Decided March 5, Syllabus The Department Interior's Bureau Reclamation (Reclamation) administers Klamath Irrigation Project (Project), which uses water from River Basin irrigate parts Oregon and California. After began developing Operation Plan (Plan) provide allocations among competing users, asked Indian Tribes (Basin Tribes) consult with on matter. A memorandum understanding between those parties called for assessment, consultation Tribes, impacts tribal trust resources. During roughly same period, Department's Affairs (Bureau) filed claims behalf Tribe an state-court adjudication intended allocate rights. Since responsible administering land held tribes, it consulted Tribe, two exchanged written memorandums appropriate scope ultimately submitted by Government benefit Tribe. Respondent Water Users Protective Association (Association) a nonprofit group, most whose members receive have interests adverse owing scarcity water. series requests under Freedom Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 seeking access communications Tribes. turned over several documents, but withheld others attorney work product deliberative process privileges said incorporated FOIA Exemption exempts disclosure "inter-agency intra-agency letters would not available law party than agency litigation agency," 552(b)(5). then sued compel release documents. District granted summary judgment. Ninth Circuit reversed, ruling out application ground whom has consulting relationship direct interest matter consultations. court hold otherwise extend shield what amount ex parte contested proceedings Department. Held: documents at issue exempt FOIA's requirements as letters." Pp. 4-14. (a) Consistent goal broad disclosure, its exemptions been consistently given narrow compass. E.g., Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 136, 151. 4-5. (b) To qualify 5's express terms, document must satisfy conditions: source agency, fall within ambit privilege against discovery judicial standards govern holds document. Court's prior cases addressed second condition, dealt incorporation civil privileges. So far they here, include so-called "deliberative process" privilege, covers reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations, deliberations part decisions policies formulated. NLRB Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 132, 150. point protect secrecy pure simple, Exemption's first condition no less important second; communication intra-agency," "[A]gency" defined mean "each authority Government," 551(1), includes entities such Executive Branch departments, military corporations, Government-controlled independent regulatory agencies, 552(f). Although terms statutory definitions say nothing about outsiders, some Courts Appeals prepared outside consultant qualifies "intra-agency" memorandum. In cases, records consultants played essentially agency's personnel. fact constant does represent own interest, client, when advises hires it. Its only obligations truth sense good judgment calls for, respects functions just employee expected do. 5-8. (c) misplaces reliance this corollary 5. argument skips necessary step, ignores "intra-agency inter-agency." There textual justification draining vitality. Once applied, rules analogy consultants' reports (assuming, decide, these 5). Consultants typically communicated their person group might affected action consultant. regard, enough like personnel justify calling "intra-agency." contrary, necessarily communicate own, albeit entirely legitimate, mind. While alone distinguishes examples recognized Circuits, distinction even sharper, self-advocates expense benefits inadequate everyone. As bearing Plan, obviously competition nontribal claimants, including irrigators represented respondent. take formally argumentative form brief, function quite apparently support claims. rejects assertion Tribe's consultant-like character clearer circumstances adjudication, where merely represents state will make decision respective rights contenders. Again, dispositive apparent object claim competitors because there position beneficiary cry paid also compelled impair performance fiduciary obligation confidentiality tribes. boils down requesting read "Indian trust" exemption into statute. simply text, strictly serve mandate disclosure. 8-14. 189 F.3d 1034, affirmed. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT Souter, J., delivered unanimous Court. Opinion Souter 1 Documents passing Interior, federal determine allocations. question whether Act, letters" normally privileged discovery. We not. 2 * Two separate give rise case, planning effort Reclamation, courts. Within (Klamath Project), territory County, Oregon, northern California counties. 1995, develop long-term operations plan Project, known (Plan), allocation users. well Hoopa Valley, Karuk, Yurok matter, "[t]he unique legal Native American governments," "[a]ssessment, [Plan] Tribal resources." App. 59, 61. 3 25 1a; CFR subch. H., pts. 150-181 (2000), not, however, act counsel lawyers independently behalf.1 4 Respondent, association users Basin, during relevant time period. work-product These agency." By ruling, seven remained dispute, three them addressing concerned seventh both proceedings. See 1036 (CA9 1999), Pet. Cert. 41a-49a. Six were representative Government's behest Regional Solicitor; official gave Ibid. 6 motion It each qualified inter-agency purposes was covered having role Bureau's adjudication. F.3d, 1036, 31a-32a, 56a-65a. 7 reversed. 1034 1999). Circuits had adopted "functional" approach generated still communication. id., 1037-1038. saw reason go that, ruled "the consultations." Id., 1038. "[t]o Department." Judge Hawkins dissented, he springing "from remains consultative rather adversarial, expertise opposing them." 1045. He proper enquiry going document's source, plays decisionmaking. 1039. certiorari view decision's significant impact tribes Government, 530 1304 now affirm. II 8 Upon request, mandates see unless enumerated exemptions, 552(b). "[T]hese limited do obscure basic policy secrecy, dominant objective Act," Air Force Rose, 425 352, 361 (1976); "[c]onsistent Act's compass," 151 (1989); FBI Abramson, 456 615, 630 (1982) ("FOIA narrowly construed"). 9 protects qualify, thus 10 Our incorporating See, e.g., Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 792, 799-800 (1984); 148 (1975) ("Exemption withholds member public private could discover agency"). sometimes privilege. Work "mental processes attorney," Nobles, 422 225, 238 (1975), while "documents recommendations comprising governmental formulated," U.S., 150 (internal quotation marks omitted). rests obvious realization officials candidly themselves if remark potential item front page news, enhance quality decisions," 151, protecting open frank discussion who EPA Mink, 410 73, 86-87 (1973); supra, 802. 11 intra-agency." Statutory underscore plainness text. With exceptions "agency" means States," "includes executive department, corporation, controlled establishment branch . , 12 neither nor anything nevertheless Hoover Dept. 611 F.2d 1132, 1137-1138 (CA5 1980); Lead Industries Assn. OSHA, 610 70, 83 (CA2 1979); Soucie David, 448 1067 (CADC 1971). Julian, 486 (1988), Scalia, joined Justices O'Connor White, explained natural meaning phrase 'intra-agency memorandum' employees single 18, n. (dissenting opinion). But his acknowledged more expansive reading Appeals: 13 "It textually possible ... accord purpose provision, regard one received assist functions, acting governmentally conferred capacity another agency-e.g., officer unit (not agency) authorized required advice Ibid.2 14 Typically, courts taking latter extends agencies hired them. Hoover, 1138 ("In determining value, government deem seek experts rely solely opinions appraisers"); Assn., (applying cover draft "prepared testified staff"); Land Bank GSA, 671 663, 665 1982) ("Both agree property appraisal, performed contract professional, 'intra-agency' exemption"). deliberation done. sure, contractors assumed degree control employment entailed; we assuming devoid definite contracts services. typical B 15 purports arguing existence course, question, Cherokee Nation Okla., 480 700, 707 (1987); Mitchell, 463 206, 225 (1983); Seminole 316 286, 296-297 (1942). described "one primary cornerstones law," F. Cohen, Handbook Federal Law 221 (1982), compared existing common trust, trustee, individuals beneficiaries, resources managed corpus. 225. Nor doubt plausibility candor eroded without protections surely right saying conducive discharge obligation. 16 From recognition communication, protect, us infer sufficient applying fashion found favor consultant's way. seems purely conclusory term, label placed find valuable keep confidential. 17 is, vitality, once applied,3 mentioned already, communicating Appeals, everyone.4 18 66-71. record shows included, others, "a paper discusses theories" "addresses issues related tribes," 42a-43a, "contain[ing] views BIA agencies," "views concerning resources," 44a, letter "conveying involved adjudication," 47a. urging being combined demand. said, Tribes' demands, satisfied, lead reduced protested fear shortages economic injury dry years." 1035. 19 insists since Brief Petitioners 42-45; Reply 4-6. simple. Even rival stake litigation, pressing Bureau. ignored merged somehow trustee; obliged adopt stance believed beneficiary's best espoused itself. Cf. Restatement (Second) Trusts 176, Comment (1957) ("[I]t duty trustee exercise care skill preserve man ordinary prudence dealing ."). 20 But, again, competitors. everyone, potentially ask depending how evaluated rivals. adversarial submissions therefore fair inference, confirmed acknowledgement "obligation coexists interests, particular respect Project." 8; cf. Nevada 110, 142 (1983) ("[W]here Congress imposed upon addition obtain reclamation projects, inclusion reservation lands project, faithless cannot controlling evaluating different interests"). 21 Quite apart attempt draw conventional consultants, argues itself specific tribes.5 Because, argues, traditional forbid disclose information acquired should know excluding handicap doing requires. 36-37.6 And much vein, presses "FOIA cast light practices; interpreted applied so perform assigned substantive normal manner." 29. 22 All statute, reasons already explored. elsewhere insisted disclosure,7 affect operations. FOIA, after all, new conception conduct enacted law, " 'a general philosophy full disclosure.' (quoting S. Rep. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., (1965)). "Congress philosophy, put practice, help 'ensure informed citizenry, vital functioning democratic society.' Robbins Tire Rubber 437 214, 242 (1978)). realize every secret old new. 23 24 ordered. NOTES: "not technically [the Tribes'] attorney. That attorneys, acts trustee." Tr. Oral Arg. "The interests" 6. 7. majority Julian did address intra-agency" concluded routinely discoverable event. 11-14. Because conclude meet threshold need reach step analysis enquire litigation. 799 (1984). least instances arguably beyond characterized examples. Public Citizen, Inc. Justice, 111 168 1997), former Presidents treated National Archives Records Administration, though 171. Ryan 617 781 1980), Senators' responses Attorney General's questionnaires nomination exempt, expect Senator strong personal decide either instance intra-agency, treated. above, excludes, least, interested applicants. points Plan-related furnished reinforces conclusion provided trustee. 47. alter our analysis, think fail fit comfortably note cites proposition 'trustee third effect detrimental beneficiary.' Petitioner 36 170, s (1957)). unnecessary duties pattern. argue specifically envisioned pursuant responsibility, responsibility. rule hesitant construe statutes legislative inaction, Bob Jones Univ. 461 574, 600 (1983), twice considered proposals information, Amendment Act: Hearings 2652 Subcommittee Senate Committee Interior Insular Affairs, 94th 2d Sess. Trust Protection 1978, 2773, 95th (1978). confirm commonsense today, emphasize nobody surprised reading.

Category: 1