Case Brief - Food Marketing Institute v

.docx

School

Northeastern University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3550

Subject

Medicine

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MajorBraveryArmadillo27

Olivia Leo Professor Laurel Leff First Amendment & the Media 16 October 2023 Case Brief Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader 139 S.Ct. 2356 (2019) 1. Who are the parties to the lawsuit (more than name, some description)? The parties to the lawsuit are the Food Marketing Institute as the petitioner and Argus Leader Media as the respondent. The Food Marketing Institute is a trade association representing grocery retailers, while Argus Leader Media is the parent company of the Argus Leader, a South Dakota newspaper. Evan A. Young and Assistant to the Solicitor General Anthony represented the Food Marketing Institute, while Robert M. Loeb represented Argus Leader Media. 2. What events occurred to turn this into a legal dispute? In other words, what happened? What are the facts of the case? The South Dakota Newspaper, Argus Leader, filed a FOIA request for with the USDA for the names and addresses of all retail stores that participate in SNAP. After the USDA only attempted to give partial components of the data, the newspaper sued them in federal court in attempts to release the requested data. At the end of trial, the district court ruled in favor of Argus Leader . While the USDA declined to appeal, it alerted the retailers who had provided the data so that they could consider intervening to pursue the case further and the Food Marketing Institute answered the call. The Institute argued that the court should discard the “substantial competitive harm” test and apply instead the ordinary public meaning of the statutory term “confidential.” 3. What happened in the courts prior to the opinion you’ve just read? (use specific court names) As stated in the answer above, it started in Argus Leader Media v. U.S. Department of Agriculture 900 F. Supp 2d 997 (2012) and continued in a series of reversing and remanding the decision within federal courts until Argus Leader Media v. U.S. Department of Agriculture 889 F.3d 914 (2018), in which it was stated that “the court could not say that disclosure would rise to the level of causing “ substantial competitive harm,” and thus ordered disclosure” Following this decision, the USDA declined to appeal, but alerted those providing the data that they could pursue the case further if they found it necessary. As the Food Marketing Institute answered this call, they successfully intervened under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and filed their own appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Kelly, Circuit Judge, 889 F.3d 914 , affirmed. After the Eighth Circuit's mandate was recalled, the case was then taken to the Supreme Court, and following trials 139 S.Ct. 4, 201 L.Ed.2d 1121, 2018 WL 3767657 , and 139 S.Ct. 5, 201 L.Ed.2d 1127, 2018 WL 4101674 , certiorari was granted . 4. What court rendered the decision you just read? In what year? The Supreme Court of the United States rendered the decision. It was argued April 21, 2019 and decided June 23, 2019. 5. How did this decision come out? Who won? By what vote? Who wrote the majority opinion? Are there concurrences and/or dissents?

The decision came out as a 6-3 majority for the Food Marketing Institute. Justice Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion. Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Kagan, and Justice Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in this decision. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor joined Justice Breyer, concurring in part and dissenting in part. 6. What happened to the parties involved in the litigation as a result of this court’s decision? (e.g. the defendant should be free, or the case should be retried in the lower court, etc.; the defendant had to pay the plaintiff this much in damages) The judgements from the federal courts and Eighth Circuit were reversed and remanded. 7. What issue was presented for the Court to resolve? (what are the lawyers arguing about?) The issue that was presented was did Argus leader Media violate FOIA's Exemption 4 by requesting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) redemption data from individual grocery retailers. 8. What is the holding, what did the majority decide and why? (In the absence of a majority opinion, discuss the per curiam or the plurality here.) The majority decided in favor of the Food Marketing Institute. The Court found that the Food Marketing Institute had standing to appeal, At the time FOIA was enacted, the term “confidential” meant “private” or “secret, and, under this meaning of the term, the information is “confidential.” The word “confidential” was given a a different meaning in National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. Morton , 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974) . The concept of “substantial competitive harm” was developed by the DC Circuit. This concept is based on testimony of witnesses in congressional hearings on a different bill that was never enacted. The majority found that the release of this information could cause “substantial competitive harm.” 9. How do the concurrences, if there are any, add to what the majority (or plurality) has to say? Why is this justice concurring? In what ways does s/he not accept fully what the majority has to say or does s/he just want to make a comment? The concurrences add to the majority opinion by elaborating more on why the interpretation of the “substantial competitive harm” rules has its loopholes. While Justice Breyer agreed with the majority that the “substantial competitive harm” rule from the DC Circuit is not valid in this case, he also argued that the majority incorrectly interpreted Exemption 4 as having no harm requirement whatsoever. Justice Breyer stated that “the language permits, and the purpose, precedent, and context all suggest, an interpretation that insists upon some showing of harm.” Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg joined Justice Breyer on concurrence. 10. How do the dissents, if there are any, disagree with the majority (or the plurality)? Why is this justice dissenting? In what ways does s/he disagree with the majority. Justice Breyer dissented in part and was joined in this by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg. As stated above, the main reasoning for this was that the statement “substantial competitive harm” implies the showing of some form of malicious intent in its interpretation. .

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help