Department of the Air Force v. Rose
425 U.S. 352 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Freedom of Information Act's (FOIA) exemptions for internal personnel rules (Exemption 2) and personnel files (Exemption 6) are to be narrowly construed. Exemption 2 does not protect matters of significant public interest, and Exemption 6 requires courts to balance privacy interests against the public's right to disclosure, mandating the release of reasonably segregable, non-exempt information after redacting identifying details.
Facts:
- Student editors of the New York University Law Review were conducting research on the disciplinary systems at military service academies for a law review article.
- The editors requested access to case summaries of honor and ethics hearings from the United States Air Force Academy.
- In their request, the editors specified that personal references and other identifying information should be deleted from the summaries.
- The Air Force Academy administers an Honor Code and an Ethics Code to its cadets, which are enforced through a cadet-run committee system.
- Following hearings for alleged violations, the Academy prepares brief case summaries outlining the significant facts.
- The Academy's own practice was to post these summaries on approximately 40 squadron bulletin boards and to distribute copies to faculty and administration officials.
- For cases resulting in findings of not guilty or where discretion was granted, the Academy already deleted the cadets' names from the summaries before posting.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents (Rose et al.) filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act against the Department of the Air Force in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to compel disclosure of the case summaries.
- The District Court, a trial court, granted summary judgment in favor of the Air Force, ruling that the summaries were exempt from disclosure under FOIA's Exemption 2.
- Respondents appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment, holding that Exemption 2 did not apply and that the summaries were not categorically exempt under Exemption 6.
- The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to conduct an in camera inspection of the summaries to redact all personal references and identifying information before disclosure.
- The Department of the Air Force (petitioners) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Freedom of Information Act require a federal agency to disclose case summaries of honor and ethics code hearings, with personal identifying information redacted, when the agency claims the summaries are exempt as matters related solely to internal personnel rules and practices (Exemption 2) or as personnel files whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (Exemption 6)?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes, the Freedom of Information Act requires disclosure of the case summaries after an in camera review by a court to redact identifying information. The Court held that neither Exemption 2 nor Exemption 6 provides a blanket justification for withholding the documents. For Exemption 2, the court adopted the narrow Senate Report interpretation, concluding that the exemption only applies to trivial administrative matters and not to records of significant public interest, such as the administration of the Academy's disciplinary codes. Regarding Exemption 6, the court determined that the phrase 'clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy' modifies both 'personnel files' and 'similar files,' meaning there is no blanket exemption for personnel files. Instead, a balancing test is required, weighing the individual's right to privacy against the public's right to government information. The proper remedy is not complete withholding, but for the District Court to conduct an in camera review and order the disclosure of all reasonably segregable, non-exempt portions after redacting identifying details.
Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
No, the disclosure of these summaries, even after redaction, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Exemption 6. The Chief Justice argued that the stigma of an honor code violation is severe and indelible for a military officer, and the privacy interest at stake gravely outweighs the public's relatively inconsequential need for the information for a law journal article. He also contended that the required redaction process would place an intolerable burden on the district court, forcing it to act as a 'rewrite editor' and effectively construct a new document, a function not contemplated by Congress.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No, the case summaries are protected by both Exemption 2 and Exemption 6. Justice Blackmun argued that the Academy's Honor Code system is a quintessential example of 'internal personnel rules and practices' covered by Exemption 2, and the existence of public interest does not change its internal nature. He also argued that under Exemption 6, the 'clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy' clause applies only to 'similar files,' and that 'personnel files' should be categorically exempt. He viewed the court-ordered redaction as an impractical solution that fails to prevent a clear invasion of the cadets' personal privacy.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No, the records are exempt from disclosure. Justice Rehnquist agreed with Chief Justice Burger's dissent, stating that the Freedom of Information Act does not contemplate the 'virtual reconstruction of records under the guise of excision.' He concluded that without such extensive redaction, which he viewed as improper, Exemption 6's protection against a 'clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy' clearly applies.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the scope of FOIA's Exemption 2, establishing that it does not apply to agency matters of genuine public interest. It also clarified that Exemption 6 does not create a blanket privacy shield for all information contained in 'personnel files,' instead requiring a case-by-case balancing of privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure. The case solidified the practice of in camera review and redaction as the standard judicial tools for separating exempt from non-exempt information, thereby reinforcing FOIA's pro-disclosure mandate while still protecting legitimate privacy concerns.
