FOIA Exemption 2
Exemption Two permits an agency to withhold documents “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.” The Supreme Court has interpreted Exemption Two as permitting disclosure of documents that are so trivial that there is no “genuine and significant public interest.” The “thrust of the exemption is simply to relieve agencies of the burden of assembling and maintaining for public inspection matter in which the public could not reasonably be expected to have an interest.” The court also noted that this interpretation can be expanded in situations “where disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation.”
Thus, two categories of information fall within Exemption Two. The first, known as “low (b)(2) material,” concerns inconsequential agency information. The second, known as “high (b)(2) material,” concerns agency information that could enable violations of the law if disclosed. If withholding frustrates legitimate government interests, material should be released unless the government can show that disclosure would risk circumvention of federal statutes.
Thus, two categories of information fall within Exemption Two. The first, known as “low (b)(2) material,” concerns inconsequential agency information. The second, known as “high (b)(2) material,” concerns agency information that could enable violations of the law if disclosed. If withholding frustrates legitimate government interests, material should be released unless the government can show that disclosure would risk circumvention of federal statutes.
Example of Exemption 2
In Hussain v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, an Iraqi citizen seeking documents from USCIS successfully challenged an Exemption Two denial. DHS argued that the information it had failed to disclose pertained to internal personnel rules and consisted of employee identification codes, computer login codes, policies regarding the use of parking facilities and break rooms, as well as employee leave and dress codes. The court held that DHS failed to meet its burden of explaining to the court how the documents were necessarily trivial, stating that: “[f]or all exemptions, even low 2 exemptions, the agency must still identify, with some detail, what material it is redacting from the particular documents, and may not only refer to a generalized justification for redaction.” Federal department negligence can form the basis for challenging a FOIA rejection.