In a string of recent cases following the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, multiple courts have held that a party submitting information to the government need not demonstrate it obtained an assurance of confidentiality from the government in order for the agency to justify withholding that information
Daniel W. Wolff
Dan Wolff is a litigator and regulatory problem solver. He is a partner in Crowell & Moring's Washington, D.C. office and chairs the firm's Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice. Dan works with clients across a wide spectrum of regulated industries, counseling them on their rights and obligations under a number of federal regulatory programs and in responding to government enforcement actions. Dan appears regularly in federal district and appellate courts, frequently in matters arising under the Administrative Procedure Act and other federal statutes, or which pose constitutional questions. He also litigates commercial and products liability cases in both federal and state venues.
Appeal Without Argument: A Coronavirus Contingency, or the New Normal?
Last week, the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and several other federal and state courts of appeals took the unusual step of suspending or postponing all upcoming in-person oral arguments. On March 16, the Supreme Court issued a press release postponing arguments for the March session (through April 1), stating that…
DOJ Issues FOIA Exemption 4 Guidance Following Argus Leader; Confirms That “Assurance of Confidentiality” At Time of Submission Not Currently Required
Last week, the Department of Justice issued new guidance regarding the application of Exemption 4 to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) following the Supreme Court’s decision this past June in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019). (Crowell & Moring previously wrote about Argus Leader here.)