Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Court Cases

United States versus Nixon (1974)

President Nixon was under investigation for his involvement in the Watergate break-in and cover-up.
A special prosecutor discovered Nixon had a voice recording system in the Oval Office.
The prosecutor requested the tapes, but Nixon refused to hand them over.
Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor, sued Nixon through the United States Attorney General to gain access to the tapes.
Nixon argued that he was beyond the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The Supreme Court rejected Nixon's argument.
The Court stated that executive privilege could be asserted only when:
- The material in question involves military secrets
- The material involves diplomatic secrets
The United States won access to Nixon's tapes under FOIA.
The ruling narrowed the scope of presidential exemptions under FOIA.

Law review editor Rose wanted to write an article on internal discipline at military schools.
He sought statistics on the number of individuals disciplined, the nature of the disciplines, and the scope.
All four academies denied access, citing the protection of personal private information under FOIA.
Rose argued that he only needed statistics and that this wouldn't reveal personal privacy.
The academies still denied access, so Rose took them to court.
The Supreme Court ruled that Rose should receive the statistical information.
The Court stated that there isn't an absolute barrier to turning over data simply because individuals are involved.
Information is still protected as long as specific names are not associated with cases.
This case demonstrates that information can be obtained, but not necessarily in the form initially desired.

This case involves a "backdoor approach" to gathering information, going to a government agency instead of a private corporation.
The Auto Workers Union wanted information before negotiating a new treaty with Chrysler Corporation.
Chrysler had a large contract with the Department of Defense (DOD).
The Auto Labor Union went to Secretary Brown of the DOD to gather information under FOIA.
Brown was willing to turn over the information.
Chrysler Corporation sought an injunction to prevent Brown from turning over the information.
The Supreme Court ruled that Brown could turn over the information because it was properly filed with a department/agency covered by FOIA.
The Court emphasized the importance of the statutory catch-all exemption.
This exemption is mandatory.
The case reemphasized the importance of the statutory catch-all exemption in precluding information from agencies/departments.

This case deals with access to information held by the Department of State.
Henry Kissinger served as an advisor to several presidents.
In the late 1970s, upon retiring, Kissinger gave all his accumulated documents to the Library of Congress.
His secretary transcribed all conversations, and Kissinger placed the documents in a closed section of the library.
The Library of Congress is a closed library: you request material, and a librarian retrieves it, granting access if you have permission.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press was denied access to Kissinger's records.
The Reporters Committee filed a FOIA lawsuit, arguing that the records should be accessible.
The courts ruled against the Reporters Committee.
The courts stated that Congress is not under FOIA legislation, and therefore, neither is its library.
Kissinger was able to prevent individuals from accessing his personal memoirs given to the Library of Congress.

Forsham headed the Committee on the Care of Diabetics.
The committee sought alternative uses for products like insulin due to side effects and tolerance issues.
The FDA, headed by Harris, had government contracts looking for alternatives.
The Committee wanted specific results gathered and given to them in a specific manner.
Harris and the FDA requested only vague summary data regarding the effectiveness of alternative products.
The Committee went to the FDA, requesting the use of FOIA to gather information in a particular manner.
The agency stated that FOIA only dictates whether you have access to data, not how it's collected.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Harris and the FDA.
The ruling stated that you cannot compel an agency to obtain data in a particular manner.
The agency can collect data in any way they choose.

The CPSC was testing television sets in the late 1970s (when the majority of TV sets didn't have a remote control).
The CPSC discovered that a particular brand of TV had a power surge issue, causing the picture tube to explode.
The CPSC wanted to warn the public about the flaw.
GTE, a company that submitted TV sets for testing, prevented the CPSC from turning over the information, citing the catch-all exemption.
The Supreme Court agreed with GTE.
The catch-all exemption is mandatory, even if the CPSC wants to release the information to the public.

In 1982, the issue of ongoing law enforcement investigation was examined.
Floyd Abramson believed Nixon considered him a traitor and was being investigated by the FBI.
Nixon had requested a summary of an "enemies list" he had created.
Abramson didn't want the investigation material but wanted the summary to see if his name was on the list.
Abramson sued the Federal Bureau, but the Bureau won.
The protection was granted under FOIA due to the ongoing law investigation.

This case deals with prison access.
Access to prisons and jails is important due to activities like breakouts, riots, murders, and deaths.
Reporters, led by Eva Pell, challenged Percunier, head of the California State Corrections Authority, who prohibited media interviews.
To interview an inmate (e.g., Charles Manson), permission was required from the warden, who could deny it.
Pell argued that the First Amendment was meaningless without access to inmates and their stories.
The Supreme Court denied the media the right of access.
The Court stated that the First Amendment only deals with the publication of information, not the gathering of it.
Inmates are incarcerated and dangerous, and the warden understands the dynamics of the prison.
Journalists have no more right of access than an average person wanting to tour the prison.

This case builds on Pell, dealing with access to a county jail (whereas Pell dealt with the entire state penal system).
KQED, a public television station in California, was denied access to a jail.
An inmate had committed suicide, and KQED wanted to film the cell and interview cellmates.
Hutchins (the sheriff) allowed access only during public tours and prevented specific interviews.
The Supreme Court ruled for Hutchins, stating that the Pell decision was correct in limiting access.
If access can be limited to prisons, then it can be limited to jailhouses.

The First Amendment grants the right to publish but not necessarily the right to gather information.