Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – The Supreme Court agreed Monday that a community activist could get copies of Navy maps showing the damage expected from an explosion at an ammunition dump in Washington. The Navy had opposed the activist’s Freedom of Information Act request for the maps.
The base at Naval Magazine Indian Island in Puget Sound is the Navy’s main repository for munitions on the West Coast. It stores weapons, ammunition and explosives. Community activist Glen Milner claimed to be concerned about the safety of residents at nearby Port Townsend in western Washington when he requested copies of the maps and data on the explosives.
Although no major explosion has occurred at the Navy base, the maps project the extent of damage if one took place. The Navy uses them to determine how far storage units should be spaced from one another to avoid a chain reaction if one of them detonates.
Navy officials said the maps were exempt from disclosure under the “personnel rules and practices” exception in the Freedom of Information Act. The exception protects the privacy of government employees. In Milner’s case, the Navy sought to protect the privacy of its personnel who work at the ammunition dump.
The Navy also argued that disclosing the maps could reveal the exact location of its munitions to dangerous people. However, the Supreme Court’s 8-to-1 ruling said keeping the public informed about safety issues was a higher priority.
“These data and maps calculate and visually portray the magnitude of hypothetical detonations,” said the majority opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan. “By no stretch of the imagination do they relate to ‘personnel rules and practices,’ as that term is most naturally understood.
“They concern the physical rules governing explosives, not the workplace rules governing sailors; they address the handling of dangerous materials, not the treatment of employees.”
The ruling is the second Supreme Court decision in a week to reinforce Freedom of Information Act rights.
Last week, the court ruled that AT&T could not use the “personal privacy” exemption under the Act to stop the Federal Communications Commission from releasing records about the corporation. The 1966 law was an attempt by Congress to protect the public’s right to know about how government works. It defines federal agency records that can be disclosed, but also establishes nine exemptions. One of the exemptions is for personnel rules and practices.
“An agency’s ‘personnel rules and practices’ all share a critical feature: They concern conditions of employment in federal agencies – such matters as hiring and firing, work rules and discipline, compensation and benefits,” the court’s ruling said.
The Supreme Court agreed the information could potentially be exempt from public disclosure, but not under the personnel rules and practices exception. The Navy could have marked the maps as “classified” or could have invoked an exemption for law enforcement information.
In either case, the Navy would have a much stronger case to keep the documents secret, said the opinion written by Kagan.
Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, saying the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday departs from court judgments that have allowed broad use of the exemption for 30 years.
“I would let sleeping dogs lie,” Breyer wrote.
The Court overturned decisions by both the District Court and the Court of Appeals. Twenty news organization filed amicus briefs to support Milner. One of them was filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
“The government’s interpretation of the [personnel rules and practices] exemption was tortured, at best, and once again the Court relied on a common sense approach to government transparency,” said Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the nonprofit organization.
View full post on All Stories