Document: 486 U.S. 1 108 S.Ct. 1606 100 L.Ed.2d UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Petitioners,v.Kenneth Michael JULIAN and Margaret J. Wallace. No. 86-1357. Argued Jan. 19, 1988. Decided May 16, Syllabus The two respondents are federal prison inmates whose requests for copies of their presentence investigation reports were denied by the Parole Commission. Pursuant to Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 32(c), a probation officer prepares report, which contains background information about defendant circumstances his offense, use district court at sentencing. Under Rule, court, before imposing sentence, must permit counsel read except portions, inter alia, containing diagnostic opinions, confidential sources information, or that, if disclosed, might cause harm others. After sentencing, typically transmitted Bureau Prisons its use, then—pursuant Commission Reorganization Act 1976 (Parole Act)—are sent eventual in determining whether prisoner should be paroled. provides that scheduled parole hearing is held, given reasonable access but exempts same three categories as 32(c). disclosure requests, filed separate suits under Freedom Information (FOIA), District Courts ordered disclosure. Consolidating petitioners' appeals, Court Appeals affirmed. It rejected contentions exempt from both Exemption 3 5 FOIA. pertains matters "specifically exempt[ed] disclosure" another statute "refers particular types withheld." makes FOIA inapplicable "inter-agency intra-agency memorandums letters would not available law party other than an agency litigation with agency." Held: requires disclosed petitioners, relating sources, possibly harmful information. Pp. 8—14. (a) Beyond protecting noted above, neither 32(c) nor satisfies 3's requirements. Recent changes, leading present provisions, have been made Act, protect report disclosure, ensure it who sentenced up parole. Although 32's provision requiring all furnished returned unless directs otherwise, qualifies somewhat defendant's when context does convert part essentially designed mandate into exempt[s] purposes 3. Moreover, contain similar provision. 8-11. (b) support withholding reports. incorporates privileges Government enjoys relevant statutory case pretrial discovery context. test documents "routinely" "normally" upon showing relevance. civil criminal cases courts reluctant give third prepared some individual absence special need, restriction on applicable requesting subject report. thrust portions speaks strongly against existence privilege request In this context, nothing prevents conclusion "routine." FTC v. Grolier Inc., 462 103 2209, 76 387 distinguished. 11-14. 806 F.2d 1411 (CA 9 1986), REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., dissenting opinion, WHITE O'CONNOR, joined, post, p. ----. KENNEDY, took no consideration decision case. Edwin S. Kneedler, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Eric Robert Glitzenstein, respondents. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. Respondents sued U.S.C. § 552, These sentencing; they offense. then released below petitioners—the Department Commission—to disclose question we now called decide these petitioners fall one FOIA's exemptions. 2 Rules outlines requirements preparation has adjudged guilty. 32(c)(1) imposition sentence service shall make offense.1 results compiled 32(c)(2) prior record, description offense behavior, discussion loss suffered any victims aid including restitution needs victim. also specifies procedure contents defendant. 32(c)(3)(A) states "[a]t time . exclusive recommendation sentence." may disclose, however, "diagnostic opinions which, seriously disrupt program rehabilitation; obtained promise confidentiality; result harm, physical persons." Ibid. If type required orally writing summary factual withheld relied appropriate sentence. Once opportunity comment introduce evidence inaccuracies. 32(c)(3)(E) "[a]ny attorney government immediately following granting probation, discretion otherwise directs." 4 sentenced, copy Prisons, where used classification inmate, see 28 CFR §§ 524.10, 524.12(e) (1987), choosing treatment program, deciding eligibility various privileges. See Brief Petitioners 7 (citing Fennell & Hall, Due Process Sentencing, 93 Harv.L.Rev. 1615, 1679 (1980) ).2 A United States pursuant 2(e) Act),3 18 4205(e), "duty officers" furnish "information such concerning eligible parolee" request. consider among documents, making decision. 4207(3). least 30 days hearing, provided "reasonable [the] document making" determination. 4208(b). As 32(c)(3)(A), requirement potentially information—that protected court. excluded duty (or agency) "to summarize basic material inmate." 4208(c)(3); 2.55(c) (1987).4 contain, express inmate return he access." 6 stems 1984, respondent Kenneth Julian, Arizona, asked him When was denied, Julian brought suit Arizona. brief order, granted Julian's motion judgment comply Wallace, California, Commission's records pertaining her. honored her large part, refused turn over Wallace Commission5 Northern California. This too, released. consolidated appeal Ninth Circuit, affirmed each. (1986). first stating "agency records" FOIA,6 Government's 552(b)(3) (Exemption 3) 552(b)(5) 5). While certain parts 32(c)(3) 4208(c), found "neither blanket exemption reports" F.2d, 1416. argument superseded procedures obtaining set out Act. Because conflicts earlier Columbia Durns 256 U.S.App.D.C. 156, 804 701, rehearing en banc 257 30, 1122 (1986), cert. pending, 86-6550, because raises several important issues, certiorari, 482 926, 107 3209, 96 695 affirm. 8 system established simple theory. nine enumerated exemptions listed 552(b). Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 792, 793-794, 104 1488, 1489-1490, 79 814 (1984). Congress created "realized legitimate governmental private interests could harmed release information." FBI Abramson, 456 615, 621, 102 2054, 2059, 72 376 (1982); CIA Sims, 471 159, 167, 105 1881, 1883, 85 173 (1985). Nonetheless, "[t]he calls broad records," id., 166, reason consistently stated narrowly construed, supra, 630, S.Ct., 2063-2064; Air Force Rose, 425 352, 361, 1592, 1599, 48 11 (1976). With principle mind, whether, contends, exempted either 5. permits agencies withhold 10 ., (A) public manner leave issue, (B) establishes criteria refers 552(b)(3). argues applies statutes specifically "refer To extent clearly true: relates parties. 32(c)(3)(A); 4208(c). thus 12 this, Both provisions recently changed, For example, 1966, amended sentencing defense attorneys prosecutors. Advisory Committee Notes indicate purpose amendment was: 13 "[T]o clear counsel. hoped will increasing so defendants generally full rebut explain facts factors sentences." App., 625, 39 F.R.D. 69, 194 (1966). 14 again 1974,7 changing state "[b]efore defendant, investigation," Pub.L. 94-64, 89 Stat. 370, (emphasis added). 1983, after empirical study revealed "the nature current rule 32 insufficient accuracy information," Notes, 996 (1982 ed.Supp.IV), 97 245, 307 (1983), additional changes Rule. mandatory eliminating requirement; authorized counsel; 15 All serves purposes: described facilitates balance Similarly, dealing much based, potential parolee. line intent, expressly prisoners access" pertinent hearing. 16 while did intend reports, sought limit otherwise. Fed. Crim.Proc. 32(c)(3)(E). insure [the reports] do become unauthorized 627, 62 271, 325 (1974). Admittedly qualify our And, governs duties regard itself only given; there limitation inmate's power retain Even assume, suggests, implicitly adopts contained 32(c)(3)(E), still 4208 statute. those 4208(c); remaining covered exemption, disclosed8 them. 17 relies requested documents. 552(b)(5).9 past, interpreted Delphic "incorporat[ing] context." Renegotiation Board Grumman Engineering 421 168, 184, 95 1491, 1500, 44 57 (1975); 26-27, 2213-2214, (1983); U.S., 799, 1492-1493. NLRB Sears, Roebuck Co., 132, 149, 1504, 1515-1516, 29 (1975), "exempt[s] normally privileged H.R.Rep. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., (1966), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 2418 (the "any internal routinely through process general public"). Accordingly, 'routinely' 'normally' relevance." Grolier, 26, 2214. parties agree very individuals. See, e.g., McKnight, 771 388, 390 1985); Anderson, 724 596, 598 1984); Charmer Industries, 711 1164, 1173-1176 1983); Hancock Brothers, Inc. Jones, 293 F.Supp. 1229 (ND Cal. 1968). points out, fear chilling effect willingness individuals contribute incorporated Martinello, 556 1215, 1216 1977). second need confidentiality allow obtain Charmer, 1174-1176 (following concluding "in compelling demonstration meet ends justice"). 19 There indication, restrictions recognized Indeed, seem reported judicial decisions subject. By itself, course, fact directly point respect category conclusive situation. From perspective, appears reasoning denying third-party requesters little applicability examine own particularly light 32(c)'s specific during We note addition most sort arise Reynolds, 345 1, 7-8, 73 528, 531-532, L.Ed. 727 (1953). But constitutionally rooted, determine avail not. Here, think accurate say intimated, actually provided, exist. 20 contends nonetheless "would agency" added), cannot construe way agency's identity requester. held work-product doctrine even though possible seeking "substantial need." 27, stated, "[W]hether immunity absolute qualified, said 'routine' disclosure." Such result, "by establishing discrete implements congressional intent provide 'workable' rules." Ibid.; EPA Mink, 410 73, 79, 827, 832, 35 119 (1973) "plainly intended concrete, workable standards disclosed"). 21 Contrary contention, language 5, spoken has, extended none all. claim overridden mean "routinely available" within meaning reaffirm holding, decline invitation extend basis class requesters, although perfectly sound resisting behest requesters. show order situation whatever valid reasons treating differently class. case, seems good differentiate between simply preventing latter ruling therefore, themselves can 22 Affirmed. 23 KENNEDY 24 whom O'CONNOR join, dissenting. 25 I dissent today's my view fails perform fundamental function reading body enacted laws fashion them pointless; achieve failure departure, sure engender confusion litigation, individuating characteristics considered. address each turn. 26 * 1975, approved Procedure, providing judge (presumably familiar dangerousness associates) directs. July 31, 2, 370. adopted clause completely consistent provision, Commission, report—a term assuredly require, indeed ordinarily required, retention document. Today holds really matter, soon transferred 27 had protective question, argue change heart Congress, repeal implication frustration implication. form 1967, issue here, 90-23, 81 54. converts explicitly more temporary inconvenience, since without approval shortly reduces limitations (which arises scheduled, content access") utter meaninglessness. am frank admit readily conceive why allowing keep significantly threatening notes it. Penal probationary authorities believed however—and apparently continue believe so, evident 1985 statement Division Probation Administrative Office Courts, opposing proposal routine reports: "[I]t position Judicial Conference States, well permitting likely impede ability officers gather sources. 31 "Were permitted effectively prohibit further possibility far dangerous source revealing recollection what "[Rule ] embodies concern inimical sentencing." Letter Chamlee Chairman Comm'n Baer, June 17, 1985, App. Pet. Cert. 25a-26a. 33 idea sound, obviously addressed resolved favor restricted access. frustrate disposition unavoidably requires. proceed discuss, just opposite genuine revolution accepted principles produce peculiar result. II 34 too warrant extensive discussion—or until today been—that meant entitlement them, rather inform action." 143, n. 10, 1513, (1975) foreword official Memorandum guidance describing newly FOIA, Attorney General Clark correctly identified five key concerns goal "that equal rights General's Public Section iv (June 1967) added) (hereinafter AG Memorandum). scholarly commentators agreed: "The Act's sole public. never main section says 'to public' central subsection (c) availability 'any person.' " Davis, Act: Preliminary Analysis, U.Chi.L.Rev. 761, 765 (1967). 36 What true particular, production 552(b)(5).1 Clark's went explain, (5) files litigants, bars 38 long applying requester Circuit put cited approval, 16: ' "a party"—not necessarily applicant—would entitled record] discovery.' Sterling Drug FTC, 146 237, 244, 450 698, 705 (1971), quoting 796. 37 (1973), Members House Representatives, saying [does not], terms, inquiry particularized litigant." Id., 86, 835. significant controversial features 1974 amendments revision 552(b)(1) overturn holding Mink regarding President's Message Representatives Returning H.R. 12471 Without His Approval, Weekly Comp. Pres.Doc. 1318 (1974), left unchanged. reaffirmed approach Co.: "Sears' increased decreased claims interest Advice Memoranda greater shared average member fundamentally action benefit litigants." 10. sensible require hypothetical party's compelling. Report memoranda 'routinely disclosed' accept law. [Citing Drug, supra.]" 16. 40 Again 1982, confirmed underlying asserted requester, world: 41 logical respondent's whenever discoverable anyone previously analysis." 28, 2214-2215, 387. 42 Most recently, disregarded determination, expressing quite simply: "[S]ince Machin [protecting statements air crash safety investigators] precluding statements, 5." 1492-1493, 814.2 43 sum, scope determined actual party." Brockway Force, 518 1184, 1192, (CA8 1975). Or looseleaf services categorically states: "[N]o virtue influence outcome Franklin R. Bouchard, Guidebook Privacy Acts, 1.08[2], 1-72 (2d ed., 1987). Thus, inaccurate ." Ante, 13. cases, like scholars statute, recognizes thing "third-party requester," affirms equivalent status, right identifies. Nor Court's error corrected qualifier adds, "particularly That "mandate" event, discussed, retention-copy document) applied impermissibly adverting demonstrated 1974, 552a—which, unlike large, namely, [that] individual." 552a(a)(4). Why, wonder, seek legislation? answer 552a(j)(2)(C), agencies, regulation, exclude "reports identifiable stage enforcement arrest indictment supervision."3 combined entirely 45 Since, confessed earlier, me worse inspection, perhaps dire consequences predicted persuaded adopt ensue. doubt, bombshell area settled precedent, taken account frequently invoked exemptions, sure, characteristic, takes pains narrow, suit. once principle, condemned lower (and, suppose, ourselves) appreciable increase volume tests law, rule, justifies taking account. respectfully unfortunate holding. No if, permission waives finds already sufficient record enable meaningful exercise court's discretion. necessary, finding record. Fed.Rule 32(c)(1). practice time. Harv.L.Rev., 1679. 1983 Amendments transmitting Prisons. 995 Supp. IV), 306, 308 (1983). Comprehensive Crime Control 98-473, Tit. II, ch. 98 1987, revised place 1976. importantly, mandates sentences imprisonment fixed 3581, 3582(a) eliminates end 3621(a), 3624(a). repealed November new effect. operate years, 1987. During 5-year period, remain 235(b)(1)(A), 2032. phased handling dissolved, receive courts. According Government, usual identify summaries Division, Presentence Investigation (1984)). She named Charles Turnbo, warden she incarcerated. apparent petition habeas corpus 2241. treated 552(a)(4)(B). dispute appeal. became effective December 1975. 552(b)(9), supply applicant reasonably segregable portion deletion exempt." "inter-agency" find necessary today. contend memorandums" officers, appointed serve direction courts, 3602(a) 3603(8) "agencies" 551(1)(B) 552(f) ed. IV). reach ante, 11, 9, must. Apart natural phrase "intra-agency memorandum" memorandum employees single agency—as opposed memorandum," different agencies. problem interpretation excludes many situations 5's deliberative plainly applicable. Consequently, uniformly it, Senators nominations, Ryan Justice, 199 199, 207-209, 617 781, 789-791 (1980), outside consultants, Land Bank GSA, 671 663, 665 1982). supported permissible desirable textually accord received agency, assist performance functions, person acting governmentally conferred capacity behalf agency—e.g., employee consultant unit (not advice agency. Here fits definition. 32(c)(3)(D) (referring Commission"); 4205(e) (making request). unquestionably "well 1175-1176 (CA2 (CA5 1977); Figurski, 545 389, 391 (CA4 1976); Greathouse, 484 805, 807 (CA7 1973); Evans, 454 813, 819-820 (CA8), 406 969, 92 2423, 668 (1972). exemption. 16.85(a)(2) (1987). regulations "must directed court." 2.56(b). today, genuinely 32(c)—that retained

Category: 0