The Supreme Court limited public and media access to government records Monday by expanding a federal law's definition of what can be deemed confidential.
At issue was whether confidentiality, as used in a section of the Freedom of Information Act, means anything intended to be kept secret or only information likely to cause harm if publicized.
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the 6-3 decision, with Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.
A retailers trade group, the Food Marketing Institute, and the federal government argued for a broad definition that would leave ample room to keep data from the public. Media organizations and public interest groups favored a more narrow definition requiring harm, which would make confidentiality apply to fewer FOIA requests.
The Argus Leader asked the Department of Agriculture, which administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to release the annual amounts taxpayers paid to more than 320,000 retailers participating in the program.
Data were requested as part of the newsroom's ongoing projects into food access deserts and fraud in the food stamp program.
"At least where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is 'confidential' under the meaning of (FOIA)," Gorsuch ruled.
Breyer differed by noting that "the whole point of FOIA is to give the public access to information it cannot otherwise obtain."
"We’re disappointed in today’s outcome, obviously," Argus Leader news director Cory Myers said. "This is a massive blow to the public’s right to know how its tax dollars are being spent, and who is benefiting. Regardless, we will continue to fight for government openness and transparency, as always."
No comments:
Post a Comment