This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to David S. Mann, the case concerns the interpretation of Exemption 2 of the Freedom of Information Act, which the petitioner argues applies only to internal personnel policies and rules.
According to David S. Mann, petitioner says the Crooker decision created a “High 2” exemption covering FBI and ATF search‑and‑seizure manuals.
According to David S. Mann, petitioner notes that Congress considered but ultimately chose not to amend Exemption 2 when it amended Exemption 7.
The Navy’s oral argument was presented by Anthony A. Yang.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Alito asked if the Crooker decision has been the leading decision on Exemption 2 for nearly 30 years.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer questioned why Crooker has not been accepted as the definitive interpretation of Exemption 2.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Glen Scott Milner)
According to David S. Mann, exemption 2’s plain language limits it to materials related solely to internal personnel policies and rules.
According to David S. Mann, the Crooker decision created a “High 2” exemption covering FBI and ATF search‑and‑seizure manuals.
According to David S. Mann, congress considered amending Exemption 2 at the same time it amended Exemption 7 but ultimately chose not to.
According to MR. YANG, petitioner argues that rejecting the Crooker‑based interpretation would disrupt 30 years of FOIA practice.
According to MR. YANG, petitioner’s brief identifies three elements of Exemption 2, emphasizing that records must be properly maintained within an agency and not for general release.
According to MR. YANG, petitioner contends that Congress lowered the protection bar for law‑enforcement records, providing more protection than Crooker did.
- [1] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 3
- [2] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 5
- [3] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 8
- [4] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 23
- [5] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 24
- [6] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 39
Respondent (Department of the Navy)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to David S. Mann, petitioner’s counsel David S. Mann presented four points, emphasizing the narrow scope of Exemption 2.
According to David S. Mann, mann argued that Crooker created a “High 2” exemption for law‑enforcement manuals.
According to David S. Mann, mann noted that Congress chose not to amend Exemption 2 when it amended Exemption 7.
According to MR. YANG, respondent’s counsel Anthony A. Yang argued that Exemption 2 requires records to be internally maintained and not for general release.
According to MR. YANG, yang explained that Congress lowered the bar for law‑enforcement records, providing more protection than Crooker did.
Justices asked several questions about Crooker’s authority, the practicality of classifying all security‑related information, and how emergency procedures might be handled.
- [1] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 3
- [2] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 5
- [3] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 8
- [4] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 24
- [5] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 39
- [6] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 4
- [7] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 42
- [8] a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdf, p. 40
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to David S. Mann, Exemption 2 applies only to materials related solely to internal personnel policies and rules.
According to MR. YANG, Congress lowered the bar for law‑enforcement records, providing more protection than Crooker did.
Justice Breyer highlighted that misclassifying munitions information could lead to unsafe handling of weapons.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- a5a306791ab2f78b44d1-r1-c903e32b70e2d26c.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.