Chrysler Corp. v. Brown

Background

Chrysler, a large government contractor, produced affirmative-action plans (AAPs) and employer reports (EEO-1) to compliance agencies under Executive Orders and Labor Department rules. The Defense Logistics Agency told Chrysler that third parties had requested an AAP and a complaint-investigation report (CIR) for two plants. Chrysler sued in federal court seeking to stop release, arguing privacy and criminal confidentiality protections in the Trade Secrets Act and agency rules, and the District Court issued temporary orders against disclosure.

Reasoning

The Court addressed two core questions: whether the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) gives Chrysler a private right to stop disclosure, and whether the Labor Department’s disclosure regulations count as 'authorized by law' under the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1905. The Court said FOIA is a disclosure law and does not let a private party enjoin release. It also held that the OFCCP disclosure rules did not have the binding force of law because they lacked clear congressional authorization and failed required rulemaking procedures. The Court therefore remanded for the lower courts to decide whether § 1905 actually covers the specific documents.

Real world impact

The ruling makes it harder for agencies to rely on internal disclosure rules to release contractor business information without statutory backing. Contractors who claim confidential business data may obtain judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act while courts determine if § 1905 bars disclosure. This is not a final decision on each document; the case was sent back so courts can decide whether the Trade Secrets Act protects the records.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall wrote separately to stress that § 1905 forbids disclosures not 'authorized by law' and agreed the OFCCP rules do not authorize the releases.