Introduction

Milner v. Department of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011), represents a pivotal Supreme Court decision that clarified the scope of Exemption 2 under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The case arose when Glen Scott Milner, a resident of Washington State, submitted FOIA requests seeking access to explosive safety data and maps employed by the Department of the Navy (Navy) at a naval base in Washington. The Navy denied the requests, invoking Exemption 2 on the grounds that disclosure would threaten the security of the base and surrounding communities.

The central issue in this case was the interpretation of FOIA's Exemption 2, which pertains to materials "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency." The lower courts had sided with the Navy, adopting a broad interpretation of Exemption 2 that included not only human resources matters ("Low 2") but also records that, if disclosed, could risk the circumvention of agency regulations or statutes ("High 2"). The Supreme Court's decision sought to resolve this interpretative split.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that Exemption 2 of FOIA is limited to records related to employee relations and human resources matters, commonly referred to as the "Low 2" exemption. The Court determined that the explosives data and maps requested by Milner do not fall under this exemption as they pertain to the physical handling and storage of munitions, not to internal personnel rules and practices.

The Court emphasized a narrow interpretation of Exemption 2, aligning with Congress's intent to promote broad disclosure under FOIA while limiting exemptions to specific, narrowly defined categories. Consequently, the Navy could not rely on Exemption 2 to withhold the requested information, thereby reversing the lower courts' rulings and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The decision extensively referenced Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976), where the Court first interpreted Exemption 2 narrowly, limiting it to employee relations and human resources. Another critical precedent was Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms, 670 F.2d 1051 (1981), where the D.C. Circuit expanded Exemption 2 to include records that could potentially lead to the circumvention of agency regulations ("High 2"). The Supreme Court scrutinized these interpretations, ultimately favoring the narrower "Low 2" scope articulated in Rose.

The Court also considered legislative history, noting conflicting interpretations between House and Senate reports, and found that the Senate's narrower view was more consistent and reliable. Additionally, the Court addressed the legislative amendments to Exemption 7(E) in 1986, determining that these did not endorse the broader "High 2" interpretation of Exemption 2.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning hinged on the plain meaning of the statutory language. "Personnel" was interpreted in its common usage related to human resources rather than any internal agency rules. By focusing on the term's ordinary meaning, the Court confined Exemption 2 to protect only those records directly tied to employment conditions, such as hiring practices, work rules, and employee benefits.

Furthermore, the Court underscored FOIA's purpose of promoting transparency and public access to government records. It stressed that exemptions must be construed narrowly to prevent agencies from overusing them to withhold information unjustifiably. The broad "High 2" interpretation was seen as conflicting with these objectives, as it allowed for the withholding of information unrelated to personnel matters, thereby undermining FOIA's ethos.

The dissent argued for maintaining the "High 2" standard, emphasizing thirty years of precedent and the practical necessity of protecting sensitive information. However, the majority held that adherence to clear statutory language takes precedence over long-established but broader interpretations.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future FOIA requests and agency practices. By narrowing Exemption 2 to the "Low 2" scope, agencies must now ensure that only personnel-related records are withheld under this exemption. Information related to security practices, operational procedures, or other internal guidelines no longer qualifies under Exemption 2 and may need to be disclosed unless it falls under another specific exemption such as Exemption 1 (classified information) or Exemption 7 (law enforcement).

The decision also impacts how courts interpret FOIA exemptions moving forward, reinforcing the principle that exemptions should be read narrowly and consistently with statutory language and legislative intent. Agencies may need to re-evaluate their FOIA response protocols to align with this stricter interpretation, potentially increasing transparency and public access to government information.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

FOIA is a federal law that grants the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government. Agencies must disclose any information requested unless it falls under one of nine exemptions.

Exemption 2

Exemption 2 of FOIA protects records "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency." This means it can be used to withhold documents that pertain to how an agency manages its employees, such as hiring, firing, payroll, and employment policies. The term "personnel" here specifically relates to human resources matters, not other internal agency operations.

Low 2 vs. High 2 Interpretation

The "Low 2" interpretation confines Exemption 2 strictly to human resources-related documents. In contrast, the "High 2" interpretation expansively includes any internal agency records that, if disclosed, could lead to the circumvention of laws or regulations. The Supreme Court's decision in Milner narrowed Exemption 2 to the "Low 2" standard.

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is a legal decision made by a court without a full trial. It is granted when the court determines that there are no genuine disputes of material fact and that one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Milner v. Department of the Navy serves as a crucial clarification of FOIA's Exemption 2, strictly limiting it to personnel-related matters and rejecting broader interpretations that could undermine the Act's transparency objectives. This ruling not only advances the public's right to access government information but also necessitates adjustments in how federal agencies handle FOIA requests. By reinforcing a narrow interpretation of exemptions, the Court upholds the fundamental balance between government transparency and the protection of legitimately sensitive information.