For those who suspect the Roberts Court always sides with business, the March 1 opinion in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T (pdf) might give them pause.

In this 8-0 opinion, the Court held that the term “personal privacy,” as used in a statutory exception to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA; 5 U.S.C. § 552), does not apply to corporations. The exception covers law enforcement records, the disclosure of which “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

The genesis of the case arose seven years ago. In 2004, AT&T was investigated by the FCC for self-reported possible overcharging of the federal government. The company settled the FCC’s investigation at the end of 2004 without admitting liability.Following the investigation, a private industry group submitted a FOIA request to the FCC, seeking materials produced by AT&T to the Commission in the course of the Commission’s investigation. AT&T opposed the group’s request for information.

The FCC disagreed with AT&T’s position, concluding that the information sought by the industry group (which included AT&T’s cost and pricing data, billing-related information, and identifying information about staff, contractors, and customer representatives) did not constitute materials protected under the exception on the basis of AT&T’s “personal privacy.”

AT&T appealed this administrative decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which found in AT&T’s favor on the disputed issue. The appellate court noted that the legislative definition of “person” included corporations as well as individuals (5 U.S.C. § 551(2)). Hence, it reasoned, the “personal privacy” referenced in the exception could apply to a corporation as well as an individual, and so a corporation could be entitled to “personal privacy” protection under the language of the statute.

The Supreme Court, in a decision penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected the Third Circuit’s decision and AT&T’s position. Roberts observed that the FOIA, elsewhere in its statutory terms, makes reference to “personal privacy.” The context of those other uses of the phrase makes clear that the right to privacy belongs to a person, not a corporation. The Chief Justice gave examples of other adjectives whose sense did not necessarily jibe with the concept of the noun contained within the adjective: “corny” does not always refer to concepts related to the plant corn. Likewise, “cranky” doesn’t always refer to the mechanical device. Accordingly, contrary to AT&T’s argument, “personal” doesn’t necessarily refer only to the legal definition of a person – which can include a corporation. The opinion continued by observing that courts normally give a phrase under analysis “its ordinary meaning.” 

Roberts’ opinion noted that the Court was not considering the scope of a corporation’s “privacy” interests as a matter of constitutional or common law. The only issue in this case was whether the term “personal privacy,” as used in the FOIA, applied to corporations – and the Court concluded emphatically that it did not.  

Photo credit: DNY59