Environmental Protection Agency et al. v. Mink et al.
410 U.S. 73 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a court's inquiry into a claimed national security exemption (Exemption 1) ends upon a showing that documents are classified as secret pursuant to a valid Executive Order, and the court may not inspect them in camera to segregate non-secret portions. Under the deliberative process exemption (Exemption 5), purely factual material is not protected and must be disclosed if severable, but a court is not required to conduct an in camera inspection in every case and may first allow the agency to prove exemption through affidavits.
Facts:
- In July 1971, a newspaper article reported that the President had received conflicting recommendations about an upcoming underground nuclear test, 'Cannikin,' scheduled to take place at Amchitka Island, Alaska.
- The article stated the recommendations were the product of a departmental under-secretary committee.
- Two days later, Congresswoman Patsy Mink sent a telegram to the President urgently requesting the release of the committee's recommendations and report.
- The request for the documents was denied by the Executive Branch.
- The withheld documents consisted of a report and related letters prepared by the Under Secretaries Committee, a part of the National Security Council system, to provide advice and recommendations to the President regarding the nuclear test.
- The government asserted that six of the nine contested documents were classified as Top Secret or Secret pursuant to Executive Order 10501, involving matters vital to national defense and foreign policy.
- The government also asserted that all nine documents were inter-agency memoranda containing advice and recommendations used in the President's decision-making process.
Procedural Posture:
- Congresswoman Patsy Mink and 32 of her colleagues sued several government agencies in U.S. District Court, seeking to compel disclosure of documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
- The government moved for summary judgment, arguing the documents were protected by FOIA Exemptions 1 and 5, and submitted an affidavit from Under Secretary of State John Irwin to support its claims.
- The District Court (trial court) granted summary judgment for the government, finding all the documents exempt from disclosure.
- Mink and her colleagues, as appellants, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment, remanding the case.
- The Court of Appeals ordered the District Court to conduct an in camera inspection of the documents to separate and release any non-secret parts (for Exemption 1) and any purely factual data not intertwined with policy-making (for Exemption 5).
- The government, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 court to conduct an in camera review of documents withheld by the Executive Branch under (1) the national security exemption where the documents have been classified pursuant to an Executive Order, or (2) the inter-agency memoranda exemption to separate out purely factual material for disclosure?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
No, the Freedom of Information Act does not require a court to conduct an in camera review of documents classified under a valid Executive Order for national security reasons, nor does it mandate automatic in camera review for documents withheld as inter-agency memoranda. For Exemption 1, the plain language of the Act and its legislative history demonstrate Congress's intent to defer to the Executive's determination. The only judicial inquiry is whether the President has determined by Executive Order that the documents are to be kept secret; once an agency shows the documents were duly classified, the court's role ends. For Exemption 5, which incorporates the deliberative process privilege from civil discovery, purely factual material is not protected and must be disclosed if it is severable from the deliberative portions. However, in camera inspection is not an automatic or necessary tool. An agency must have the opportunity to first meet its burden of proof through detailed affidavits or testimony, demonstrating that the documents are purely advisory and contain no separable factual information, thereby avoiding the need to submit the documents for judicial inspection.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stewart
No. The court correctly interprets the statute as written. While the result may be undesirable, it is Congress, not the Court, that created Exemption 1's rigid requirement of 'unquestioning deference to the Executive's use of the 'secret' stamp.' Under the Act as written, once a court determines that the Executive has required a document to be kept secret via an Executive Order, the inquiry must end.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Brennan
For Part 1: Yes; for Part 2: No. I concur with the majority's holding regarding Exemption 5, which allows for in camera review but does not mandate it as a first step. However, I dissent from the holding on Exemption 1. The Act's mandate for de novo review requires the court to determine if the exemption applies, which includes inspecting documents to see if non-secret components have been improperly withheld simply by being physically attached to a classified document. Executive Order 10501 allows for such blanket classification, which is inconsistent with FOIA's requirement that only material 'specifically required' to be secret is exempt. A court's in camera inspection to segregate non-secret portions does not involve second-guessing the Executive's classification decision, but rather enforces the specific terms of the Act.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The philosophy of the Freedom of Information Act is disclosure, and the Act's de novo review provision grants federal courts the authority and duty to inspect withheld documents to ensure the government's claims of exemption are valid. To allow the Executive's 'Top Secret' stamp to be an impenetrable barrier to judicial review is to give the Executive carte blanche to hide information from the public and makes a 'shambles' of the Act. The court's role is precisely to examine the documents to separate non-secret appendages and purely factual material for disclosure, effectuating the congressional policy of transparency.
Analysis:
This decision established a bright-line rule of extreme deference to the Executive Branch on national security classifications under the original text of FOIA, effectively barring judicial review of the substance of an Exemption 1 claim. For Exemption 5, it affirmed the important fact-opinion distinction and provided a procedural framework that balanced government efficiency with the public's right to information by avoiding automatic in camera review. The holding regarding Exemption 1 was highly controversial and prompted a strong legislative response; in 1974, Congress amended FOIA to explicitly authorize courts to conduct in camera review of classified documents, thereby legislatively overturning this aspect of the Mink decision.
Unlock the full brief for Environmental Protection Agency et al. v. Mink et al.