Milner v. Department of the Navy

Background

A Puget Sound resident, Glen Milner, asked the Navy for Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) data and maps used at Naval Magazine Indian Island showing blast distances and safe storage spacing. The Navy refused under FOIA Exemption 2. A district court and the Ninth Circuit sided with the Navy using a broader "High 2" rule that shields materials whose release might let people evade safety rules.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether Exemption 2 covers only employee-relations and human-resources rules or also any internal materials that risk circumvention of agency functions. Looking at the statute and ordinary meaning of "personnel," the Court held Exemption 2 covers human-resources matters (hiring, pay, benefits, work rules) — not technical safety data. The Court rejected the Crooker-based "High 2" approach as inconsistent with the text and reversed the Ninth Circuit, ruling the Navy could not withhold the ESQD maps under Exemption 2.

Real world impact

The decision means agencies cannot rely on Exemption 2 to protect broad categories of safety or security information; they must use other FOIA exemptions (for example, Exemption 1 for classified material, Exemption 7 for law enforcement safety risks, or statutory protections) if appropriate. The ruling remands the case so lower courts can consider other exemptions the Navy invoked, so disclosure is not guaranteed unless no other exemption applies.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito concurred, emphasizing Exemption 7(F) as a possible protection for the ESQD data. Justice Breyer dissented, arguing longstanding court practice supported the broader Crooker approach and warning of practical harms from narrowing Exemption 2.