United States Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Inc.

In 2011, the EPA proposed a rule regulating cooling water intake structures at power plants. Because these structures trap and kill aquatic wildlife, the Endangered Species Act required EPA to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. In December 2013, the Services produced draft biological opinions concluding that EPA's proposed rule would jeopardize protected species. However, the Services never finalized or sent these drafts to EPA, instead determining more work was needed. After EPA revised its rule in 2014, the Services issued a final "no jeopardy" opinion. The Sierra Club submitted FOIA requests seeking the 2013 draft opinions. The Services withheld them under FOIA Exemption 5's deliberative process privilege. The district court and Ninth Circuit ordered disclosure, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the drafts were predecisional and deliberative, and thus protected from disclosure.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, reversing the Ninth Circuit. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justices Breyer and Sotomayor dissented. The Court held that the deliberative process privilege protects from disclosure under FOIA in-house draft biological opinions that are both predecisional and deliberative, even if the drafts reflect the agencies' last views about a proposal. The Court remanded to the district court to determine whether any portions of the documents can be separated from the privileged portions.

Whether FOIA Exemption 5's deliberative process privilege protects from disclosure federal agency draft biological opinions prepared during an interagency consultation under the Endangered Species Act, when those drafts reflect the agency's last view on a proposed rule but were never finalized or shared with the consulting agency.

The ruling significantly limited the scope of government documents subject to disclosure under FOIA, making it harder for environmental groups and the public to access internal agency deliberations. It marked Justice Amy Coney Barrett's first majority opinion on the Supreme Court and was viewed as a loss for environmental transparency advocates. The decision reinforced the government's ability to invoke the deliberative process privilege to shield draft documents, potentially reducing public oversight of agency decision-making processes related to environmental regulation.