Supreme Court rules against newspaper over information request, giving confidentiality win to businesses

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 against a newspaper seeking records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on stores' financial data, finding that sharing the business data could harm the companies.

The Argus Leader in South Dakota had filed a FOIA request with the Department of Agriculture (USDA) asking for stores' redemption data on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The USDA fulfilled part of the paper's FOIA request by giving them the names and addresses of the stores, but declined to provide the SNAP data under Exemption 4 of FOIA, which blocks agencies from handing over "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential."

The newspaper sued to obtain the records and originally secured rulings in its favor. But the Supreme Court found that the data is confidential.

"At least where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of private, the information is 'confidential' within the meaning of Exemption 4," Justice Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchJustice Gorsuch is wrong — 'originalist' judges make stuff up too Supreme Court comes to Trump's aid on immigration Gorsuch: 'We're not nine robots, we're nine judges' MORE wrote in the majority opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasClinton celebrates first visibly pregnant CEO to be on business magazine cover Gorsuch: Americans should remember political opponents 'love this country as much as we do' McConnell: GOP would 'absolutely' fill Supreme Court seat next year MORE, Samuel AlitoSamuel AlitoOvernight Defense: Esper sworn in as Pentagon chief | Confirmed in 90-8 vote | Takes helm as Trump juggles foreign policy challenges | Senators meet with woman accusing defense nominee of sexual assault Esper sworn in as Pentagon chief Trump pays respects to late Justice Stevens at Supreme Court MORE, Elena KaganElena KaganPuerto Ricans joke online about what it would be like to be part of Denmark Trump pays respects to late Justice Stevens at Supreme Court Kagan: I will 'never accept' Supreme Court's ruling on partisan gerrymandering MORE and Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughKavanaugh book author on impeachment calls: 'That's not our determination to make' Kavanaugh authors defend the integrity of their work The Hill's Morning Report - Pompeo condemns Iran for 'act of war' while Trump moves with caution MORE signed on to Gorsuch's majority opinion.

Justices Stephen BreyerStephen BreyerGorsuch: Americans should remember political opponents 'love this country as much as we do' McConnell: GOP would 'absolutely' fill Supreme Court seat next year Juan Williams: McConnell's Supreme Court hypocrisy MORE, Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgNo, Justice Ginsburg, we don't need a constitutional amendment to protect equal rights for women New two-story mural of Ruth Bader Ginsburg unveiled in DC Supreme Court comes to Trump's aid on immigration MORE and Sonia SotomayorSonia SotomayorSotomayor chats with teen star of 'What the Constitution Means to Me' Sotomayor, Angela Davis formally inducted into National Women's Hall of Fame Supreme Court comes to Trump's aid on immigration MORE partially dissented in the case.

In that opposing opinion, Breyer argued that sharing the information "must also cause genuine harm to the owner's economic or business interests."

"The whole point of FOIA is to give the public access to information it cannot otherwise obtain," Breyer wrote. "So the fact that private actors have 'customarily and actually treated' commercial information as secret cannot be enough to justify nondisclosure."