Multiple Post-Argus Decisions Hold No “Assurance of Confidentiality” Required for FOIA Exemption 4
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.06.21
In a string of recent cases following the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, multiple courts have held that a party submitting information to the government need not demonstrate it obtained an assurance of confidentiality from the government in order for the agency to justify withholding that information in response to an information request made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). (Crowell & Moring previously wrote about the new test instituted by Argus Leader here.)
FOIA Exemption 4 allows agencies to withhold documents otherwise responsive to a FOIA request if the documents contain “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential.” As discussed in our previous post analyzing the Argus Leader decision, the Supreme Court had left open the question of whether the submitting party must have received some assurance from the government that the information would be kept confidential. Recently, in The Washington Post v. U.S. Small Business Administration, the District of Columbia District Court followed the lead of other post-Argus Leader decisions in “declin[ing] to ‘read the word confidential to impose a blanket requirement that the government provide an assurance of privacy in every case in which it asserts Exemption 4.” This ruling follows the court’s observation in Renewable Fuels Assoc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that “no court has yet held that ‘privately held information lose[s] its confidential character for purposes of Exemption 4 if it's communicated to the government without’ privacy assurances.” These decisions signal that no “assurance of confidentiality” requirement currently exists.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 14 min read | 11.01.24
Protectionist Trade Policies in the New Administration: A Question of Degree
Regardless of what happens in the U.S. elections on November 5, one theme is clear – protectionist policies in international trade are here to stay. To some extent, the key difference between the trade policies of a Harris administration and a second Trump Administration may be one of degree. Vice President Harris is expected to continue the more cautious, incremental approach to trade policy favored by the Biden Administration. A second Trump administration, on the other hand, is expected to pick up where it left off and aggressively use the trade tools at its disposal to try to reset and renegotiate trade relationships with many of the U.S.’s trading partners—particularly those countries with whom the U.S. has a trade deficit.
Client Alert | 23 min read | 10.31.24
Client Alert | 11 min read | 10.30.24
Are You, and Your Supply Chain, Ready for the Deforestation Regulation?
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.24
Trends in Recent FDA Warning Letters for Cosmetic and Cosmetic-Adjacent Products