Spokane7
58°
March 7, 2011
High court rules against government in open records case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today rejected the government’s broad use of an exemption in the federal Freedom of Information Act to withhold documents from the public, ruling for a Washington state resident who wants Navy maps relating to its main West Coast ammunition dump.
The court, by an 8-1 vote, threw out an appeals court ruling that backed the Navy’s decision to withhold maps showing the extent of damage expected from an explosion at the ammunition dump near Port Townsend in western Washington.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said maps could not be withheld under a FOIA provision that deals with a federal agency’s “personnel rules and practices.” Kagan said that part of the law concerns “issues of employee relations and human resources.”
Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, saying the courts have consistently allowed broad use of the exemption for 30 years. “I would let sleeping dogs lie,” Breyer said.
The case before the court revolved around competing ideas of public safety. The government said that releasing the maps could allow someone to identify the precise location of the munitions that are stored at its base on Indian Island.
But Glen Milner, a longtime community activist, said that the people who live near the base have valid reasons for wanting to know whether they would be endangered by an explosion. An explosion at the Navy’s Port Chicago ammunition depot during World War II killed 320 people.
Milner has raised safety concerns about several area naval facilities. While he could not get the map for the ammunition dump, an official at an area submarine base provided Milner a map showing the probable range of damage from an explosion at that facility.
Kagan said the Navy may have legitimate interests in keeping the maps out of public circulation. She said the government could stamp the maps “classified,” which would keep them from being disclosed under FOIA. Or the Navy could perhaps rely on another FOIA provision that protects law enforcement information in some circumstances, she said.
The Associated Press is among 20 news organizations that filed a brief urging the court to limit the government’s invocation of the personnel exemption.
The case is Milner v. Department of the Navy, 09-1163.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Priest Lake couple’s land dispute with EPA going to high court 
bszottlinger on March 07 at 11:51 a.m.
No comments from liberals or conservatives, is it a matter of just not understanding the significance of the ruling or am I so far out in center field that I can’t see the forest through the trees?
ny2idaho on March 07 at 12:24 p.m.
Here I am.Sorry I was late.
We need to keep the maps out of public hands and should trust the naval personnel with the saftey of the communtiy. If it (the munitions depot) were made public, the information regarding the weapons storage, then it would create an ideal target for those that want to cause us harm. Therefore, it is in my humble opinion, that the case should be tossed on the grounds of National Security. I’m nore of an independent that leans mostly to the right. Will that suffice?
de3 on March 07 at 12:33 p.m.
I understand ny2idaho’s comment. But that was not the basis by which the Navy withheld the information. As noted in the article, they withheld the information claiming it was personnel data, which it isn’t. Government doesn’t get to make up the rules as they go along.
bszottlinger on March 07 at 2:17 p.m.
You both bring up good points, but the best thing to do is read the arguments and then decide. I initially would probably have sided with “ny2idaho” but the arguments and the decision seem good to me. Keep in mind the only decent was justice Breyer, and if anyone can explain his political persuasion, then more power to you. Keep in mind the old adage bad cases make bad law. Someone early on could have decided no big deal and just give this info up , but they didn’t. So here we are and who knows where it may go.
DemoDriver on March 07 at 3:59 p.m.
So does this mean that the city of Spokane will have to honor FOIA requests for monies collected from ticketing adult bicyclists who don’t wear helmets? LOL
SpokaneLiberal on March 07 at 4:17 p.m.
Seems like a good ruling to me. If the concern was a concern about those that wish to do us harm then stamp them classified or use a different FOI exception. To use the personnel exception made no sense.
I love 8-1 rulings. The dissents are often just odd.
Oh and Justice Breyer is a pragmatist who doesn’t believe in originalism. He is a consequences of rulings guy. So in this case he probably saw: consequence munitions maps made public. Thus he voted no.
Ninch on March 07 at 6:54 p.m.
Did not Breyer also vote for public condemnation of property/land for use by private developers? That did not make any sense for someone considered to be a liberal. Luckily Washington State already had laws in place to prevent such private developer gifts, but other states did not until they took legislative action after that ruling.
SpokaneLiberal on March 08 at 6:37 a.m.
Yeah Ninch I think that it does work as a consequence ruling and a pragmatist ruling. I disagree with it but I think he found that with the new model of private-public partnership it was a natural outcropping.