Clarifying FOIA Exemption 6: Public Interest Outweighs Privacy in Disclosing Non-Policy-Making Employees’ Identities

Introduction

The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Texas Public Policy Foundation v. U.S. Department of State confronts a routine Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that yielded a novel ruling on the scope of Exemption 6. The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) sued the State Department after it redacted the names and official email addresses of rank-and-file employees who assisted in drafting the Biden administration’s 2030 greenhouse-gas reduction pledge under the Paris Agreement. The district court upheld the redactions as “personnel and similar files” shielded by Exemption 6, but on appeal the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the Department failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that disclosure would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Key issues addressed include: (1) whether emails containing employee names and addresses qualify as “similar files” under Exemption 6; (2) how to apply the Supreme Court’s balancing test weighing individual privacy against public scrutiny; and (3) the effect of the subsequent presidential withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on the public’s continued interest in the information. The parties are:

Plaintiff–Appellant: Texas Public Policy Foundation, a policy-research organization.
Defendant–Appellee: United States Department of State.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Department and rendered judgment for TPPF as to the applicability of FOIA Exemption 6. Although the Court assumed—without deciding—that emails bearing employee names and official addresses might qualify as “similar files,” it found that the Department had not demonstrated a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. The court held:

FOIA Exemption 6 carries a “strong presumption in favor of disclosure,” and agencies must justify any withholding under a stricter standard than other exemptions.
The Department’s asserted privacy interests—fear of harassment, “doxing,” or unwanted contact—were speculative, unsubstantiated, and insufficient to override public scrutiny of policy development.
The public interest in knowing which career and working‐level employees contributed to a major international policy pledge (and in using their email addresses to pursue subsequent, more targeted requests) outweighed any marginal privacy concerns.
Even though the Biden administration’s 2030 target has since been rescinded by Executive Order, the ruling is not moot: TPPF continues to seek those identities, and the decision may guide future re-entry decisions or similar policy efforts.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit ordered production of the withheld names and email addresses and remanded for further proceedings.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Washington Post Co. v. United States Department of State (1982): The Supreme Court interpreted “similar files” broadly to cover any government records “which can be identified as applying to that individual.” Citizenship-status records were held analogous to personnel files.
Department of State v. Ray (1991): Reaffirmed Exemption 6’s strong presumption in favor of disclosure and clarified the “clearly unwarranted invasion” balancing test.
Sherman v. Department of the Army (5th Cir. 2001): Established that the agency bears the burden of demonstrating that privacy interests clearly outweigh public disclosure.
Empower Oversight v. NIH (4th Cir. 2024) and Pomares v. Department of Veterans Affairs (9th Cir. 2024): Held that FOIA Exemption 6 may, under certain circumstances, justify redacting names/email addresses—though neither case squarely addressed whether emails constitute “similar files.”
Bayala v. DHS (D.C. Cir. 2016): Reinforced that once a document is fully released, there is no live case or controversy.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Fifth Circuit’s analysis unfolded in three steps:

Threshold “Similar Files” Inquiry: Although the court assumed that email chains containing employees’ names and addresses could be “similar files,” it declined to resolve that question, focusing instead on the balancing test.
Privacy Interest Evaluation: The State Department argued that rank-and-file staff faced a “significant privacy interest” in avoiding harassment or unwanted attention. The court found this interest speculative because:

There was no evidence of actual threats or violence tied to past climate policy decisions.
The Department provided only anecdotal examples of mild social-media harassment unrelated to this dispute.
Work email addresses are official, non-personal communications channels subject to monitoring and reassignment.

Public Interest Evaluation: Under Ray’s balancing test, the public interest in transparency is strongest “where citizens seek to know what their government is up to.” Disclosure of the requested names and addresses would:

Enable researchers to learn the backgrounds, expertise, and seniority of the contributing employees.
Allow more precise FOIA follow-up requests targeted to individuals who actually worked on the policy.
Remain salient despite the later withdrawal from the Paris Agreement—both for historical accountability and for any future re-entry or climate negotiations.

Weighing these factors, the court held that the marginal privacy interests did not clearly outweigh the strong presumption of public disclosure.

3. Impact

This ruling will influence FOIA practice and administrative transparency in several ways:

Narrowing Exemption 6 for Career Staff: Agencies must now demonstrate concrete risk of harm—not mere speculative harassment—to withhold lower-level employees’ names or official email addresses.
Encouraging Proactive Transparency: Departments handling high-profile policy decisions may choose to list contributor names or establish clear guidelines for redactions to avoid litigation.
Guidance on “Similar Files” Debate: Although unresolved here, the decision signals a reluctance to equate routine emails with the intimacy of personnel or medical files absent strong privacy justifications.
Precedent for Future Administrations: Even rescinded or suspended policy targets may remain subject to public scrutiny under FOIA—a reminder that past executive actions leave an enduring administrative record.

Complex Concepts Simplified

FOIA Exemption 6: Shields “personnel and medical files and similar files” only when disclosure would cause a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” It is construed narrowly, with a strong presumption in favor of disclosure.
Similar Files: A broad category encompassing virtually any record “which can be identified as applying to a particular individual,” not limited to sensitive or intimate details.
Balancing Test: Courts identify (a) specific privacy interests at stake, and (b) the public benefit in disclosure, then weigh them. If the public interest outweighs privacy—even for routine employee names or addresses—the records must be produced.
Vaughn Index: A document-by-document explanation that agencies submit to justify withheld material under FOIA exemptions.

Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Texas Public Policy Foundation v. U.S. Department of State clarifies that FOIA Exemption 6 cannot serve as a shield for non-policy-making federal employees’ identities absent a demonstrable risk of harm. By emphasizing FOIA’s “strong presumption in favor of disclosure” and requiring agencies to bear the burden of proof, this precedent strengthens public oversight of governmental policymaking—whether in climate negotiations or other areas of national significance. Agencies should take heed and reassess their redaction practices to align with the clear mandate that transparency prevails unless privacy invasions are truly “clearly unwarranted.”