Does new Supreme Court decision in FOIA case stop Citizens United in its tracks?

from CREW:

The Supreme Court issued a decision in Fed. Communications Comm’n v. AT&T, holding the protection the Freedom of Information Act provides for “personal privacy” does not include corporations. AT&T was trying to prevent the disclosure of documents it had submitted to the FCC as part of an investigation, arguing their release would invade the corporation’s personal privacy. According to AT&T, because the word “person” in the FOIA includes corporations, the reference to “personal privacy” must also include corporations.

When the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case, many feared the Court would use it as an opportunity to extend its ruling in Citizens United, where it recognized the First Amendment rights of corporations, to broader contexts such as the FOIA. A number of groups, including CREW, filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Supreme Court to use common sense and congressional intent to limit the FOIA’s personal privacy protection to individuals.

Read the rest here.

Court: No personal privacy for business in FOIA

from Washington Post:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that corporations have no right of personal privacy to prevent the disclosure of documents under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 8-0 opinion Tuesday that reversed an appeals court ruling in favor of AT&T. The outcome was notable for its unanimity, especially in view of recent criticism from liberal interest groups that the court tilts too far in favor of business.

"The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations," Roberts wrote. "We trust that AT&T will not take it personally."

Read the rest here.

Personal privacy and the right to know

from a New York Tmes editorial: --

For 45 years, the Freedom of Information of Act has invigorated American democracy by obliging the executive branch to make public a splendid range of documents. It serves the people’s right to know, while leaving out data whose disclosure could be harmful.

The law’s “exemption 7,” about facts gathered for law enforcement, omits records whose release could be “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Until now courts have unanimously agreed its purpose is to protect individuals. Last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments about a case in which the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, decided “personal privacy” includes the privacy of corporations.

Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T addresses whether AT&T can prevent the F.C.C. from releasing documents about the company’s overbilling of the government. If the justices supported that interpretation, they would wreak havoc on the Freedom of Information Act. Fortunately, there’s little risk of that.

Read the rest here.

Corporate secrecy at issue in Supreme Court case

from OMB Watch:

In August 2004, SBC Communications admitted improperly charging for services under an FCC program to subsidize phone and Internet access for schools and libraries. (In 2005, SBC merged with AT&T.) SBC returned the money and paid an additional $500,000 to the government under the terms of a consent decree adopted in December 2004, in exchange for the FCC closing its investigation into the matter.

In April 2005, Comptel, a trade association whose members include AT&T competitors such as Sprint and Verizon, submitted a FOIA request for the FCC's investigation file. SBC opposed the request on the grounds that the records were exempt from release under FOIA's "personal privacy" provision. In August 2005, the FCC decided to release the records because "generally, businesses do not possess 'personal privacy' interests." SBC appealed the agency’s decision.

[...]

In November and December 2010, the government and AT&T filed their briefs in the case, along with Comptel and several amici curiae. "The court of appeals' decision is itself a singular outlier in an otherwise uniform body of more than 35 years of decisional law and commentary," the government argued in its brief. "A corporation itself can no more be embarrassed, harassed, or stigmatized than a stone."

Read the rest here.

"Right to know" fracking bill debated in Montana

from Montana Conservation Voters:

HELENA, Mont. - A debate on company secrets versus the public's right to know is set for today in the Montana Legislature. A hearing is being held on a proposal that would require oil and gas companies to provide a list of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"), in the interest of protecting residents and first-responders at accidents near fracking projects.

Sharon Sweeney Fee, a Livingston nurse, is testifying.

"We want something available, not unlike what we have available on train cars now, so when anybody needs to know - because there has been accident - they can look and see what these people have been exposed to."

Read the rest here.

High court hears argument in FOI corporate privacy case

from Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:

It was a lesson in vocabulary during oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court held Wednesday morning, as the high court wrestled over the meaning of the word "personal." The case, FCC v. AT&T, concerned a federal Freedom of Information Act request for documents regarding a Federal Communications Commission investigation into AT&T's participation in a federal telecommunications build-out program. AT&T self-reported that it may have overcharged the government for its services.

The question before the Supreme Court on Wednesday was whether Exemption 7(c) of the FOIA recognizes and protects the "personal privacy" of corporate entities in the same manner as it does for individuals. Exemption 7(c) states "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

Read the rest here.

See more analysis here.