Document: 454 U.S. 139 102 S.Ct. 197 70 L.Ed.2d 298 Caspar W. WEINBERGER, Secretary of Defense, et al., Petitionersv.CATHOLIC ACTION OF HAWAII/PEACE EDUCATION PROJECT, al. No. 80-1377. Argued Oct. 13, 1981. Decided Dec. 1, Syllabus Section 102(2)(C) the National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (NEPA) requires all federal agencies, "to fullest extent possible," to include an Impact Statement (EIS) in proposals for major actions significantly affecting environment, and also EIS be made available public, subject provisions Freedom Information (FOIA). With respect construction Hawaii new ammunition weapons storage facilities containing magazines capable storing nuclear weapons, Navy prepared Assessment, which concluded that would have no significant environmental impact, therefore was prepared. Because information is classified national security reasons, Navy's regulations forbid it either admit or deny are actually stored at now-completed facilities. Before completed, respondents brought action Federal District Court seeking injunction against building until had been filed. The held that, view of, inter alia, own regulations, complied with NEPA possible" within meaning § 102(2)(C). Appeals reversed, holding prepare release public a "Hypothetical Statement" regard facility weapons. Held: erred requiring Statement." Pp. 143-147. (a) In inventing such statement departed from Congress' express intent manifested by explicit language providing disclosure should governed FOIA. Here, Exemption 1 FOIA, exempts material dealing security, as relating applicable. 143-145. (b) Moreover, statement, required production document not exist save what court thought NEPA's requirements. If FOIA were one already prepared, obviously "hypothetical" nowhere mentioned NEPA. 145. (c) simply because question "nuclear capable," but rather proposal store those trigger obligation EIS. has cannot established whether proposal. P. 146. 643 F.2d 569, reversed remanded. Sol. Gen. Rex E. Lee, Washington, D. C., petitioners. Nancy Stearns, New York City, respondents. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. Ninth Circuit (NEPA), 83 Stat. 853, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), operation Catholic Action Hawaii/Peace Education Project v. Brown, 572 (1980). we conclude creature judicial cloth, legislative mandated any statutory regulatory upon relied, reverse its decision. 2 facts relevant our decision seriously controverted. Pursuant transfer various locations on island Oahu, Hawaii, West Loch branch Lualualei Naval Magazine, Assessment1 (EIA) concerning how plan affect environment. assessment necessary 48 earth-covered associated structures stage. Construction contracts let March 1977 April 1978. completed now use. It stipulated Loch.2 3 1978, Candidate (CEIS). This CEIS deals generally hazards storage, handling, transportation does refer specific site facility. concludes environment present. 4 this Their principal complaint EIA ignored enhanced risk accident resulting Loch's proximity three nearby air facilities, effects population radiation populated area. United States "construction use action" 468 F.Supp. 190, 193 (1979). But given certain Atomic Energy Act, 2011 seq. (1976 ed. Supp.IV), petitioners possible." F.Supp., 193. We find unnecessary reach posed Court's reliance Act,3 since showing case failed comply, even need requirements regarding preparation 5 NEPA, provides agencies shall "include every recommendation report legislation other quality human detailed statement" discussing, impact proposed possible alternatives. President, Council Quality (CEQ), (FOIA), 552 Supp.V). 6 previously noted: "The thrust . concerns integrated into very process agency decisionmaking. 'detailed statement' outward sign values consequences considered during planning stage actions." Andrus Sierra Club, 442 347, 350, 99 2335, 2337, 60 943 thus serves twin aims. first inject considerations agency's decisionmaking second aim inform process. Through EIS, aware taken account. Public expressly 4332(2)(C). 7 goals 102(2)(C), though certainly compatible, necessarily coextensive. Thus, contemplates situation might process, yet withhold documents, whole part, under authority exemption. That coextensive recognized Department Defense's both time constructed4 today.5 8 apparent attempt balance interests, could disclose assess without revealing number type F.2d, 572. hypothesize, concede, will used purpose capable. Ibid. Statement," Congress As EPA Mink, 410 73, 80, 93 827, 832, 35 119 (1973), intended public's access official Government's confidentiality. Of nine exemptions Subsection think two determining must 3, 552(b)(3), authorizes withholding documents "specifically exempted statute," arguably publication Act. decide question, us clear 552(b)(1), 9 matters "(A) specifically authorized criteria Executive order kept secret interest defense foreign policy (B) fact properly pursuant order." Order 12065, CFR 190 (1978-1979 Comp.), confers specified officials power classify if pose threat security. Virtually classified. 120656 exempt 10 effected between needs necessity nondisclosure secrecy. accepted struck Congress, than engrafting onto unique concepts making. By NLRB Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 132, 161-162, 95 1504, 1521, 44 29 (1975), "does compel write opinions cases they otherwise do so. only law decided reasons create." See Forsham Harris, 445 169, 185-186, 100 978, 987-988, 63 293 (1980); Kissinger Reporters Committee, 136, 152, 960, 969, 267 follows 11 Since ensuring comply give way preserve military secrets. instant case, disclosed. indicated earlier, 1. 12 proposes Loch, regulations7 can fairly read require solely internal purposes, disclosed public. consider unable meet virtue 13 follow, however, case. capable." Kleppe 427 390, 405-406, 96 2718, 2728, 49 576 (1976), project contemplated, when proposed. To say capable" little more contemplated possibility whatever variety, may some here. triggers Due neither nor Loch. therefore, 14 Ultimately, beyond scrutiny circumstances, "public forbids maintenance suit justice, trial inevitably lead itself regards confidential, respecting allow confidence violated." Totten States, 92 105, 107, 23 L.Ed. 605 (1876). Reynolds, 345 73 528, 97 727 (1953). confront similar 15 remanded instructions reinstate judgment dismissal entered 16 so ordered. 17 BLACKMUN, whom BRENNAN joins, concurring judgment. 18 applied relatively simple straightforward. engage effect, addressing activity. disclosing contents, existence, reveal materials, publish document. nonclassified data segregable disclosable released I separately believe understates third these points, overstates second. 19 states obliquely "the [Navy] purposes." Ante, 146 (footnote omitted). fact, Defense explicitly declare "[t]he nature relieve proponent complying NEPA," although circumstance "shall safeguarded disseminated accordance applicable information." 46 Fed.Reg. 22892, 22894 (1981) (to codified 32 775.5). this, echo language: flatly [environmental impact] statement." 4332(C) (emphasis added). No exception confidential Similarly, promulgated provide "environmental statements address restricted dissemination," 40 1507.3(c) (1981); not, consistently statute—suggest requirement. 20 seems me function One purposes—if purpose—is guarantee interwoven fabric planning." 351, 2337-2338, CEQ recognized: 21 primary serve action-forcing device insure policies defined [NEPA] infused ongoing programs Government. An conjunction make decisions." 1502.1 (1981). 22 less true unaware proposals. Indeed, inability participate makes particularly important before us, "serve practically contribution process." 1502.5. quite correct materials NEPA; existence withheld divulge sensitive information. remains true, statute part see ante, 143, informational entirely lose vitality involved. Again, direct "[w]hen feasible, [EIS's] organized manner portions included annexes unclassified public," further, agrees EIS's "that then, determine issue, consistent dictates Orders, released. principle involving material; assume hold differently. 24 go straightforward principles. FOIA's exemption, defeats respondents' obtain applicability 105 (1876), suggested matter policy" suits maintained. Id., 107. case.* Petitioners convincingly argued publishing hypothetical material, run afoul And, event, notes, 146, establish project. enough dispose 25 Accordingly, concur Assessment formal 1508.9 Security Classification Guide Nuclear Weapons, SWOP 55-1 (1974); Dept. Navy, OPNAV Instruction 5721.1C (1975). §§ 2014(y), 2161, 2162, 2271. 214.8 (1978) (repealed). 214.6 12065 superseded 11652, 678 (1971-1975 turn 10501, 979 (1949-1953 Comp.). Our rested application 10501. U.S., 81, n. 7, 84, 9, S.Ct., 833, 834, 9. (repealed); * notes Sears " 'does so.' 145, quoting 1521. goes suggest Appeals' analysis runs "required [the Navy] 'hypothetical' NEPA." did series documents; instead, stated "factual [used EIS] based hypotheses," (CA9 1980) added), authorizing advisory studies "smokescreen" wished raise same issue involved Sears. There, plaintiff reduced documentary form; here, trying presume contained existing study, suggesting independent protecting And there is, well, another distinction cases: while provisions, essence "action-forcing" statute. itself, not. violates where proposed; seeming contradiction holding, developed "[i]f potential choice." 571 strictures question.

Category: 4