## Facts

- Argus Leader Media submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) seeking the names and addresses of SNAP-authorized retailers and each store’s annual SNAP redemption totals for fiscal years 2005–2010.
- USDA released the list of participating stores but withheld store-level redemption totals under FOIA Exemption 4, which protects “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.”
- Argus Leader sued, and the district court applied the then-common “substantial competitive harm” test associated with *National Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton*.
- The district court found disclosure could cause some competitive harm but not “substantial” harm and ordered disclosure.
- USDA did not appeal; Food Marketing Institute (FMI), a trade association representing retailers participating in SNAP, intervened and pursued the appeal to protect its members’ information.
- The court of appeals affirmed the disclosure order; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the meaning of “confidential” in Exemption 4 and whether FMI had standing to appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether FMI had Article III standing to appeal a judgment ordering disclosure of its members’ store-level SNAP redemption data.
2. Whether “confidential” in FOIA Exemption 4 requires a showing of likely “substantial competitive harm,” or instead carries its ordinary meaning.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held FMI had standing because disclosure would cause its members concrete financial injury, traceable to the disclosure order and redressable by reversal.
- The Court rejected the “substantial competitive harm” requirement as lacking a textual basis in Exemption 4.
- The Court held that commercial or financial information is “confidential” under Exemption 4 when it is customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and is provided to the government under an assurance of privacy.
- The Court reversed and remanded; under the district court’s findings that retailers treated the data as private and USDA gave assurances of confidentiality, the store-level redemption data fell within Exemption 4.

## Legal Principles

- A party has Article III standing to appeal when it shows concrete injury from disclosure, causation traceable to the judgment, and redressability through reversal.
- FOIA Exemption 4’s term “confidential” is interpreted by its ordinary meaning, not by a judicially created “substantial competitive harm” test.
- Information is “confidential” within Exemption 4 when (1) it is customarily and actually kept private by its owner and (2) it is supplied to the government with an assurance it will remain private.
- When these conditions are met, Exemption 4 permits withholding without requiring proof that disclosure is likely to cause substantial competitive harm.

## Conclusion

The Court broadened Exemption 4 by discarding the “substantial competitive harm” requirement and holding that privately held commercial or financial information given to the government with an assurance of confidentiality qualifies as “confidential” and may be withheld under FOIA.


Food Mktg. Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019)