Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson
102 S. Ct. 2054, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 109, 456 U.S. 615 (1982)
Rule of Law:
Information initially contained in a record compiled for legitimate law enforcement purposes does not lose its exempt status under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemption 7 if that information is later reproduced or summarized in a new document prepared for a non-law enforcement purpose, provided its disclosure would still cause one of the statutory harms specified in Exemption 7.
Facts:
- Journalist Howard Abramson was interested in the extent to which the White House may have used the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and its files to obtain derogatory information about political opponents.
- On June 23, 1976, Abramson filed a request pursuant to FOIA for specific documents relating to the transmittal from the FBI to the White House in 1969 of information concerning individuals who had criticized the administration.
- Abramson later modified his request, seeking material withheld from a one-page memorandum from J. Edgar Hoover to John D. Ehrlichman, together with approximately 63 pages of 'name check' summaries and attached documents.
- The 'name check' summaries contained information, culled from existing FBI files, on 11 public figures.
- It was agreed by the parties that the information withheld by the FBI had been originally compiled for law enforcement purposes.
- It was also settled that the 'name check' summaries themselves were developed pursuant to a request from the White House for information about public personalities and were not compiled for law enforcement purposes.
- It was undisputed that if the threshold requirement of Exemption 7 was met, the disclosure of such information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Exemption 7(C).
Procedural Posture:
- Journalist Howard Abramson filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for specific documents related to the transmittal of information to the White House.
- The FBI denied Abramson's request, asserting exemptions under FOIA § 552(b)(6) (Exemption 6) and § 552(b)(7)(C) (Exemption 7(C)).
- After administrative appeals were unsuccessful, Abramson filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin the FBI from withholding the requested records.
- The District Court found that the FBI failed to show the information was compiled for law enforcement purposes but ruled that Exemption 7(C) was validly invoked because disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and thus granted the Government's motion for summary judgment regarding the withheld material.
- Abramson appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that, with minor exceptions, the Government had failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that the documents were compiled for law enforcement purposes, and therefore Exemption 7(C) was unavailable.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted 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 information contained in records originally compiled for law enforcement purposes lose its exempt status under FOIA Exemption 7 when it is subsequently incorporated into records compiled for purposes other than law enforcement?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, information initially contained in a record made for law enforcement purposes continues to meet the threshold requirements of Exemption 7 where that recorded information is reproduced or summarized in a new document prepared for a non-law-enforcement purpose. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) aims for broad disclosure, but also provides nine specific exemptions, including Exemption 7, to protect legitimate governmental and private interests. Exemption 7 requires a two-part inquiry: first, the document must be an investigatory record 'compiled for law enforcement purposes,' and second, its release must cause one of six specific harms (in this case, an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy). The Court of Appeals erred by focusing on the purpose of the new document (the summaries) for the 'compiled for law enforcement purposes' threshold. The FOIA generally focuses on the nature of the information and the effects of its disclosure, requiring agencies to segregate exempt portions of records. The 1974 amendments to Exemption 7, which changed 'files' to 'records' and specified six harms, were intended to prevent blanket exemptions, not to strip protection from information merely because it is recompiled. The statutory objectives, particularly preventing the enumerated harms, would be frustrated if the protection disappeared simply because the information was transferred or summarized in a new document. Other exemptions, like Exemption 6, do not provide fully comparable protection against all six harms of Exemption 7. The narrow construction principle for FOIA exemptions does not justify a formalistic reading that would defeat the clear purpose of protecting certain types of information. Congress established a scheme of categorical exclusion, not a case-by-case weighing of benefits and evils of disclosure, once information is established to have been compiled pursuant to a legitimate law enforcement investigation and its disclosure would lead to one of the listed harms.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the FBI is not authorized to withhold investigatory records that were not compiled for law enforcement purposes, even if some information within them was originally compiled for such purposes. Exemption 7 explicitly permits agencies to withhold 'investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes.' The Court's interpretation effectively substitutes the word 'information' for 'records' in the statute. However, FOIA deals with 'agency records,' not 'information in the abstract,' as recognized in Forsham v. Harris. Congress chose the term 'records' advisedly, and the Court's deviation from the plain statutory language forces judges to parse agency records to determine the original purpose of every piece of information, which is inconsistent with the clear wording.
Dissenting - Justice O’Connor
Yes, the name check summaries do not qualify for exemption because they were not compiled for law enforcement purposes. Statutory construction must begin with the plain language of the statute, which describes 'investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes.' The records at issue, the name check summaries, were admittedly not compiled for law enforcement purposes. FOIA exemptions must be narrowly construed, with all doubts resolved in favor of disclosure. There is no clearly expressed legislative intention in the sparse legislative history to override this plain meaning. Furthermore, the straightforward interpretation does not lead to patently absurd consequences. While the Court argues that distinguishing between verbatim reproduction and summaries 'makes little sense' in terms of statutory objectives, Congress is free to draw such lines. A summary, unlike a photocopy, can reveal the purposes and perceptions of its creators and requesters, which a rational Congress might have deemed sufficient reason to require disclosure if the summary itself was not compiled for law enforcement. The Court is essentially rewriting the statute, substituting 'records containing investigatory information originally gathered for law enforcement purposes' for the actual statutory phrase, which is a legislative, not judicial, function.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of FOIA Exemption 7, establishing that the origin of the information, rather than the purpose of the document in which it is later contained, dictates its exempt status. This ruling broadens the protective reach of Exemption 7 by preventing agencies from having to disclose sensitive law enforcement information simply because it was re-summarized or repurposed for administrative convenience. While promoting the protection of privacy and law enforcement integrity, the decision may also make it more challenging for the public and journalists to uncover instances of governmental misuse of investigatory files if such information is transferred or summarized into non-law-enforcement documents.
