Department of Air Force v. Rose

Cadets at the United States Air Force Academy (academy) were subject to an honor code and an ethics code. Honor-code violations could result in a hearing before an eight-cadet panel. All hearing discussions were confidential. However, after a hearing, a one-page case summary was posted on 40 academy bulletin boards. Whether the offending cadet’s name was included depended on the hearing’s verdict. Violations of the ethics code were less serious, but case summaries were still sometimes distributed. For both honor and ethics summaries, distribution was limited to the academy population, with an expectation of confidentiality. When researching disciplinary systems at military academies, the student editors (plaintiffs) of the New York University Law Review requested access to case summaries with identifying information redacted. The Department of the Air Force (Air Force) (defendant) denied the request, prompting the editors to sue under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Air Force argued that it was not required to disclose the requested information because the summaries fell under either the FOIA’s exemption for internal personnel rules and practices (exemption 2) or its exemption for personnel, medical, and similar files, the disclosure of which invaded personal privacy (exemption 6). The district court reached a mixed conclusion. The Second Circuit held that exemption 2 did not apply but that there might be legitimate privacy concerns relevant under exemption 6. It ordered that the Air Force produce the summaries for inspection by the court and cooperate with the judge in redacting the records to remove identifying information before disclosure. The Air Force appealed.