SCOTUS Relaxes Definition of "Confidential" Commercial Information Exempt from FOIA
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.25.19
The Supreme Court yesterday made it easier for the Federal Government to withhold from the public certain records that businesses want kept private. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Government ordinarily must make available information it receives from a private entity to members of the public who request it. But FOIA exempts from disclosure (among other things) any “commercial or financial” information that is “confidential.” For nearly half a century, following a 1974 decision by the D.C. Circuit in National Parks and Conservation Association v. Morton, courts held that information is “confidential” for purposes of that exemption only where its disclosure would result in “substantial competitive harm.” In yesterday’s decision in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, the Court rejected the National Parks test, noting that the plain language of FOIA makes no mention of “substantial competitive harm.” Instead, the Court held that information is “confidential” for purposes of this exemption so long as it is: (1) both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner, and (2) provided to the government under an assurance of privacy. That definition is substantially broader — and far easier to meet — than the one set out in National Parks.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
