Milner v. Department of the Navy
The Supreme Court ruled that a Freedom of Information Act exemption covering an agency's "internal personnel rules and practices" only protects human-resources-type records, like policies on parking, sick leave, and work hours — not the Navy's maps and data about storing explosives.
The decision throws out a 30-year-old lower-court approach that let agencies withhold far more information whenever disclosure might let someone skirt a rule or law, meaning agencies must now look to other exemptions to protect sensitive but non-personnel records.
How it got here: A federal trial court granted the Navy summary judgment; the Ninth Circuit affirmed relying on a broad reading of the exemption; the Supreme Court agreed to resolve a circuit split.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A Puget Sound resident, Glen Milner, asked the Navy under FOIA for data and maps showing how explosives are stored at Naval Magazine Indian Island in Washington State. The information, called Explosive Safety Quantity Distance data, calculates blast distances and is used in designing storage facilities. The Navy refused, citing a FOIA exemption for internal personnel matters and warning that release could threaten base and community security.
The question before the Court
Could the Navy use a public-records law exemption for "internal personnel rules" to withhold maps and data about how it stores explosives at a naval base?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that Exemption 2 does not cover the Navy's explosives maps and data. The exemption's key word, "personnel," refers to human-resources matters like hiring, discipline, and benefits, not any internal rule that merely helps employees do their jobs. The Court rejected a 30-year-old lower-court approach ("High 2") that let agencies withhold material whenever disclosure risked letting someone dodge a rule or law, finding that approach untethered from the statute's actual words.
The Court also rejected the Navy's fallback argument that the exemption covers any rule "for" agency personnel, since that would swallow nearly every internal document and gut FOIA's disclosure goals. The Navy can still try to justify withholding the explosives information under other exemptions, including one covering material compiled for law enforcement purposes, on remand.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Federal agencies had relied on the broader "High 2" reading for three decades to withhold everything from building blueprints to computer security plans. Agencies must now find other legal grounds \u2014 like the classification or law-enforcement exemptions \u2014 to keep such sensitive records secret, and requesters may gain access to more government records than before.
What changes now
The case returns to the Ninth Circuit, which must now decide whether the Navy can withhold the explosives data under a different FOIA exemption, particularly the one covering material compiled for law enforcement purposes and whose release could endanger someone's safety. This is a final decision on the meaning of the personnel-rules exemption, though the ultimate fate of these specific records remains open on remand. Other agencies that relied on the older, broader reading may need to find new legal grounds to protect similar sensitive information.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether the Navy's explosives maps and data can be withheld under other FOIA exemptions, including the law-enforcement exemption Justice Alito discussed; that question remains open for the Ninth Circuit on remand. The ruling also does not address whether other kinds of sensitive information can be protected through classification or other statutes.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Alito
Justice Alito agreed the exemption cannot support the broad 'High 2' reading, but wrote separately to elaborate the Navy's remaining argument that the explosives data qualifies under a different exemption for information compiled for law enforcement purposes. He argued that 'law enforcement purposes' should be read broadly to include crime prevention and security functions, not just investigation and prosecution, making that exemption a promising path for the Navy on remand.
Dissent — Justice Breyer
“I would let sleeping legal dogs lie.”Breyer's closing argument for retaining the 30-year-old Crooker interpretation of the exemption.
Justice Breyer argued the Court should have deferred to the 30-year-old D.C. Circuit interpretation in Crooker, which nearly every circuit had followed or acquiesced to, and which Congress implicitly ratified by leaving the exemption untouched while amending other FOIA provisions. He contended Crooker's approach was reasonable, practical, and consistent with FOIA's balance between disclosure and legitimate secrecy needs, and warned that overturning it would force costly adjustments without a clear substitute for protecting sensitive but non-law-enforcement records.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court began with the exemption's text, since statutory interpretation starts with the actual words Congress used rather than the gloss added by lower courts over decades.
- It focused on the word "personnel," which as an adjective ordinarily refers to human-resources matters — hiring, firing, pay, benefits, and workplace conditions — not any rule that merely happens to guide employees.
- The Court reinforced this reading by pointing to FOIA's overall goal of broad disclosure, noting that exemptions must be read narrowly, and that Congress specifically drafted this exemption to be narrower than the prior Administrative Procedure Act provision it replaced.
- The Court rejected the D.C. Circuit's 30-year-old "High 2" doctrine, which had expanded the exemption to cover any predominantly internal material whose disclosure could risk letting someone circumvent agency rules, because that standard has no basis in the statute's actual language and effectively rewrites it.
- The Court also rejected the Navy's alternative "plain text" argument that the exemption covers any internal rule written for agency personnel to follow, reasoning that this reading would strip the word "personnel" of any limiting function and let the exemption swallow up other, more specific FOIA exemptions.
- Applying its narrower reading, the Court concluded that explosives maps and data address handling of dangerous materials rather than employee relations, so they fall outside the exemption altogether.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Abrogates Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (670 F. 2d 1051)
The Court rejected the D.C. Circuit's 30-year-old 'High 2' reading of the exemption as unsupported by the statute's text.
Reaffirms Department of Air Force v. Rose (425 U.S. 352)
The Court relied on Rose's suggestion that the exemption targets employee-relations matters like parking and sick leave.