Justices side with business, government in information fight




Supreme Court
Supreme Court  

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court sided with businesses and the U.S. government Monday in a ruling about the public's access to information, telling a South Dakota newspaper it can't get the data it was seeking.

Open government and reporters groups described the ruling against the Argus Leader newspaper as a setback, but it was not clear how big its impact will ultimately be.

The paper was seeking to learn how much money goes annually to every store nationwide that participates in the government's $65 billion-a-year food assistance program, previously known as food stamps.

Reporters at the paper, which is owned by USA Today publisher Gannett, asked the federal government in 2011 to provide information about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Officials initially declined to provide all the information reporters were seeking. In response, the paper sued, arguing that the store-level data the government declined to provide is public and shows citizens how the government is spending their tax money.

The government lost in a lower court and decided not to appeal. But a supermarket trade association, the Virginia-based Food Marketing Institute, stepped in to continue the fight with the backing of the Trump administration, arguing that the information is confidential and should not be disclosed.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for a six-member majority of the court that at "least where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy," the information should not be disclosed. He said the SNAP data qualified.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in a dissent joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor that he feared "the majority's reading will deprive the public of information for reasons no better than convenience, skittishness, or bureaucratic inertia."

The Food Marketing Institute said in a statement that it believes the ruling will "protect private financial information today and in the future."

Maribel Wadsworth, president of the USA Today Network, said in a statement that the decision "effectively gives businesses relying on taxpayer dollars the ability to decide for themselves what data the public will see about how that money is spent." She called it a "step backward for openness."

The case has to do with the Freedom of Information Act. The act gives citizens, including reporters, access to federal agencies' records with certain exceptions. A section of the law tells officials to withhold "confidential" ''commercial or financial information" that is obtained from third parties and in the government's possession. The question for the court was when information provided to a federal agency qualifies as confidential.

Previously, lower courts had said that information couldn't be found to be confidential unless disclosing it was likely to cause "substantial" competitive harm. The Supreme Court rejected that reading.

The Associated Press was among dozens of media organizations that signed a legal brief supporting the Argus Leader.

The case is Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 18-481.

___

Follow Jessica Gresko on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jessicagresko

COMMENTS

More Related News

Justices seem to favor insurers
Justices seem to favor insurers' Obamacare claims for $12B

The Supreme Court appeared likely Tuesday to rule that insurance companies can collect $12 billion from the federal government to cover their losses in the early years of the health care law championed by President Barack Obama. Several justices indicated their agreement with arguments from the insurers that they are entitled to the money under a provision of the "Obamacare" health law that promised the companies a financial cushion for losses they might incur by selling coverage to people in the marketplaces created by the health care law. The program only lasted three years, but Congress inserted a provision in the Health and Human Services Department's spending bills from 2015 to...

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Arizona opioid case against Purdue, Sackler family
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Arizona opioid case against Purdue, Sackler family

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a novel case by Arizona seeking to recover billions of dollars that the state has said that members of the Sackler family - owners of Purdue Pharma LP - funneled out of the OxyContin maker before the company filed for bankruptcy in September. The justices declined to take the rare step of allowing Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich to pursue a case directly with the Supreme Court on the role the drugmaker played in the U.S. opioid epidemic that has killed tens of thousands of Americans annually in recent years. The lawsuit accused eight Sackler family members of funneling $4 billion out of Purdue from 2008 to 2016 despite being aware that...

U.S. Supreme Court leaves in place Kentucky abortion restriction
U.S. Supreme Court leaves in place Kentucky abortion restriction
  • US
  • 2019-12-09 14:44:56Z

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky restriction requiring doctors to show and describe ultrasound images to women seeking an abortion, turning away a challenge arguing that the measure violates the free speech rights of physicians. The justices declined without comment to hear an appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of a lower court ruling that upheld the law after a federal judge previously had struck it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority and is closely divided on abortion rights.

Supreme Court leaves Kentucky
Supreme Court leaves Kentucky's ultrasound law in place
  • World
  • 2019-12-09 14:43:05Z

The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before abortions. The justices did not comment in refusing to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law. The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law on behalf of Kentucky's lone remaining abortion clinic.

Obergefell: Supreme Court, lawmakers have more to do to prevent anti-LGBTQ discrimination
Obergefell: Supreme Court, lawmakers have more to do to prevent anti-LGBTQ discrimination

Everyone should be treated with dignity and respect - and that means ensuring no one faces unfair treatment because of their LGBTQ+ identity.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: Latin America