Milner v. Department of Navy
Headline: Court limits FOIA Exemption 2 to human resources and employee‑relations records, rejects withholding of naval explosives safety maps, and narrows agencies’ ability to hide non‑HR internal materials.
Holding: Because Exemption 2 covers only employee‑relations and human resources matters, explosives safety maps and data are not exempt under Exemption 2.
- Stops agencies using Exemption 2 to withhold non‑HR internal security records.
- Requires agencies to rely on classification, other statutes, or law‑enforcement exemptions.
- May prompt review of previously withheld facility vulnerability information.
Summary
Background
A local resident, Glen Milner, submitted FOIA requests in 2003 and 2004 for explosives safety data and maps used at Naval Magazine Indian Island. The Navy refused, saying release would threaten base and public security, and invoked FOIA Exemption 2. The District Court granted the Navy summary judgment, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed using a broader "High 2" rule that lets agencies withhold internal materials that could enable circumvention.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether Exemption 2 covers only human resources and employee‑relations rules or also "High 2" materials whose disclosure risks circumvention. The Justices focused on the word "personnel" and concluded it ordinarily means human resources matters—hiring, discipline, pay, benefits, parking, and similar workplace rules. FOIA seeks broad disclosure and its exemptions must be narrowly construed; Congress drafted Exemption 2 to narrow an earlier, broader APA exemption. Because the explosives maps are about physical safety and blast effects, not workplace rules, Exemption 2 does not cover them. The Court reversed and remanded.
Real world impact
Agencies can no longer use Exemption 2 to shield security‑sensitive materials that are not about employees. The opinion notes the Government still has tools: classification under Exemption 1, statutes covered by Exemption 3, and law‑enforcement protections under Exemption 7 (which the Ninth Circuit may now consider on remand). The Court gave examples of materials that Crooker had sometimes protected—building plans, safe combinations, computer passwords, and evacuation plans—and said those protections should come, if at all, from other exemptions or from Congress.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Alito wrote a concurrence emphasizing that Exemption 7(F) might still shield the explosives information. Justice Breyer dissented, arguing the D.C. Circuit’s Crooker decision had guided FOIA practice for decades, that courts and agencies relied on it, and that keeping Crooker would better preserve a practical balance between disclosure and security.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?