Court Opinion

ID: 9426370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:17:41.904404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:00.575274
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Blackmun,
dissenting.
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 consist*386ently to provide force to the congressionally mandated exemptions. See FAA Administrator v. Robertson, 422 U. S. 255 (1975); Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft, 421 U. S. 168 (1975); NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U. S. 132 (1975); EPA v. Mink, 410 U. S. 73 (1973). See also Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U. S. 1 (1974). Today, I fear, the Court does just the opposite.
A. The Act’s second exemption, § 552 (b)(2), extends to matters that are “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.” There can be no doubt that the Department of the Air Force, including the faculty and staff who supervise cadets at the Air Force Academy, qualifies as an “agency,” within the meaning of § 522 (b) (2), and the Court so recognizes. Ante, at 355-356. I would have thought, however, that matters that concern the established Honor Codes of our military academies, codes long in existence and part of our military society and tradition, see Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 743-744 (1974), and the disciplining of cadets as they move along in their Government-supplied education, would clearly qualify as “internal personnel . . . practices” of that agency. By its very nature, this smacks of personnel and personnel problems and practices. It is the agency’s internal business and not the public’s, and, because it is, the exemption is, or should be, afforded. Thus, although the Court does not, I find great support in the language of the second exemption for the petitioners’ position here. To me, it makes both obvious and common sense, and I would hold, as did the District Court, that the Act’s second exemption applies to the case summaries respondent Rose so ardently desired, and removes them from his eager grasp.
I cannot accept the rationale of the Court of Appeals majority that the existence of a “substantial potential for *387public interest outside the Government,” 495 F. 2d 261, 265 (1974), makes these case summaries any less related “solely” to internal personnel rules and practices. Surely, public interest, which is secondary and a byproduct, does not measure “sole relationship,” which is a primary concept. These summaries involve the discipline, fitness, and training of cadets. They are administered and enforced on an Academy-limited basis by the cadets themselves, and they exist wholly apart from the formal system of courts-martial and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
B. The Act’s sixth exemption, § 522 (b)(6), is equally supportive for the petitioners here and for the result opposite to that which the Court reaches today. This exemption applies to matters that are “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Once again, we have a specific reference to “personnel . . . files,” and what I have said above applies equally here. But, in addition, the sixth exemption covers “similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The added restrictive phrase applies not to “personnel,” and surely not to “medical files,” but only to “similar files.” See Robles v. EPA, 484 F. 2d 843, 845-846 (CA4 1973). The emphasis is on personnel files and on medical files and on “similar” files to the extent that privacy invasion of the latter would be unwarranted. The exemption as to personnel files and as to medical files is clear and unembellished. It is almost inconceivable to me that the Court is willing today to attach the qualification phrase to medical files and thereby open to the public what has been recognized as almost the essence of ultimate privacy. The law’s long established physician-patient privilege establishes this. *388Anyone who has had even minimal contact with the practice of medicine surely cannot agree with this extension by judicial construction and with the reasoning of another Court of Appeals in Ackerly v. Ley, 137 U. S. App. D. C. 133, 136-137, n. 3, 420 F. 2d 1336, 1339-1340, n. 3 (1969), referred to and seemingly approved by the Court. Ante, at 373.
If, then, these case summaries are something less than “personnel files,” a proposition I do not accept, they surely are “similar” to personnel files and, when invaded, afford an instance of a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” It is hard to imagine something any more personal. It seems to me that the Court is blinding itself to realities when it concludes, as it does, that Rose’s demands do not result in invasions of the personal privacy of the cadets concerned. And I do not regard it as any less unwarranted just because there are court-ordered redaction, a most impractical solution, and judicial rationalization that because the case summaries were posted “on 40 squadron bulletin boards throughout the Academy,” ante, at 355, and copies distributed to faculty and administration officials, the invasion is not an invasion at all. The “publication” is restricted to the Academy grounds and to the private, not public, portions of those facilities. It is disseminated to the corps alone and to faculty and administration, and is a part of the Academy’s general pedagogical and disciplinary purpose and program. To be sure, 40 may appear to some to be a large number, but the Academy’s “family” and the area confinement are what are important. And the Court’s reasoning must apply, awkwardly it seems to me, to 20 or 10 or five or two posting places, or, indeed, to only one.
I should add that I see little assistance for the Court in the legislative history. As is so often the case, that *389history cuts both ways and is particularly confusing here. The Court's struggle with it, ante, at 362-370, so demonstrates.
Finally, I note the Court’s candid recognition of the personal risks involved. Ante, at 380-381. Today’s decision, of course, now makes those risks a reality for the cadet, “particularly one who has remained in the military,” and the risks are imposed upon the individual in return for a most questionable benefit to the public and personal benefit to respondent Rose. So often the pendulum swings too far.
I fear that the Court today strikes a severe blow to the Honor Codes, to the system under which they operate, and to the former cadets concerned. It is sad to see these old institutions mortally wounded and passing away and individuals placed in jeopardy and embarrassment for lesser incidents long past.
I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.