Milner v. Department of the Navy

2011-03-07

Headline: Court limits FOIA Exemption 2 to personnel matters, rejects broad agency secrecy, and requires agencies to disclose explosives safety maps unless another exemption applies, affecting military bases and public access.

Holding: The Court ruled that FOIA Exemption 2 covers only employee-relations and human-resources matters and held the Navy could not withhold ESQD explosives data and maps under Exemption 2.

Real World Impact:

Limits agencies’ use of Exemption 2 to withhold security or safety maps.
Pushes agencies to use classification or other FOIA exemptions for sensitive security data.
May increase public access to hazard and safety records about military sites.

Topics: freedom of information, government secrecy, military base safety, public access to records, national security

Summary

Background

A Puget Sound resident asked the Navy for explosive safety data and maps used at Naval Magazine Indian Island. The Navy refused, saying disclosure would threaten base security, and relied on FOIA Exemption 2 to withhold the records. Lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit, agreed using a broader "High 2" test that had been applied in some circuits for decades.

Reasoning

The Court had to decide what "personnel rules and practices" means. Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan said "personnel" refers to human-resources matters like hiring, pay, and workplace rules, so Exemption 2 covers only those employee-relations records (what courts call "Low 2"). A broader "High 2" test that protected internal security manuals and similar materials lacks support in the statute, the Court held. The Court found the committee reports conflicted and noted Congress later amended other FOIA exemptions rather than ratifying the broader reading.

Real world impact

The decision means the Navy could not keep the explosives calculations and maps secret under Exemption 2, and the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back for further review. The opinion notes agencies can still seek protection under other exemptions (for example, classification rules or Exemption 7 for law-enforcement/safety concerns). The ruling will require agencies to rely on those other tools when material truly threatens safety. It affects nearby communities, journalists, and researchers who request safety information.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito concurred, emphasizing that Exemption 7(F) for law enforcement and safety could still apply to these maps. Justice Breyer dissented, arguing longstanding circuit practice under Crooker should be preserved because it protected many sensitive internal materials and had worked practically for decades.