United States Department of State v. Washington Post Co.

Background

In September 1979 a national newspaper asked the State Department for any records showing whether two named Iranian officials held valid U.S. passports or were U.S. citizens. Both men were living in Iran. The State Department denied the request under the FOIA privacy exemption, saying release would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" and could expose the men to physical danger. The District Court ordered disclosure and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision based on a narrow reading of "similar files."

Reasoning

The Court examined whether the phrase "personnel and medical files and similar files" in FOIA Exemption 6 should be read narrowly. Relying on legislative history and the statute’s purpose to protect personal matters, the Court held that "similar files" has a broad meaning and covers government records that can be identified as applying to a particular individual. The Court concluded the passport/citizenship information met that threshold. The Court also said a court must balance an individual’s privacy interest against any public interest before ordering disclosure. Because the Court of Appeals did not do that privacy-public-interest balancing, the case was sent back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

Agencies may now more readily assert Exemption 6 to withhold passport or citizenship records when disclosure would clearly invade privacy and outweigh public interest. Reporters and others seeking such identity records will need to press a stronger public-interest justification. The decision is not a final ruling on these specific records; lower courts must weigh privacy risks against public benefit on remand.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O’Connor concurred in the judgment to reverse and remand; no separate opinion is reported in the published text.