31:
262:
members receive water from the
Project and, generally, have interests adverse to the tribal interest because of the scarcity of water, filed requests with the Bureau under the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to communications between the Bureau and the Basin Tribes. Some documents were turned over, but the Bureau held other documents under the deliberative process privileges incorporated in
266:(FOIA) Exemption 5, which exempts from disclosure "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency." The Association sued to compel release of the documents. The District Court granted the government summary judgment, rejecting the attempt to attain the documents.
252:
administered the
Klamath Irrigation Project, which uses water from the Klamath River Basin to irrigate parts of Oregon and California. In order for the Department to provide water allocations among competing uses and users, it asked the Klamath and other Indian Tribes to consult with the Bureau of
261:
filed claims on behalf of the
Klamath Tribe in Oregon to allocate water rights, the two exchanged written memoranda on the appropriate scope of the claims submitted by the Government for the benefit of the Tribe. Afterwards, the Klamath Water Users Protective Association, a nonprofit group whose
295:
interests which meant the documents were not exempt from public disclosure of intra-agency communications. Souter wrote that "all of this boils down to requesting that we read an 'Indian trust' exemption into the statute, a reading that is out of the question". In concluding, Souter noted that
290:
wrote the unanimous opinion of the Court which affirmed the Ninth
Circuit. The Court agreed with the appellate court that there is no exemption under FOIA for the internal documents between the Klamath tribe and the Bureau which dealt with the water allocation issue. This is because in the
273:
ruled out any application of
Exemption 5 on the ground that the Tribes with whom the Department had consultations with have a direct interest in the subject matter of the consultations. The ultimate decision by the Supreme Court took less than three months from oral argument to the
117:
Documents shared between the
Klamath tribe and the Department of the Interior, which address tribal interests subject to state and federal proceedings to determine water allocations, are not exempt from the Freedom of Information
291:
correspondence the Bureau did not act in the role that their personnel usually fulfils, in that personnel do not represent their own interests. The Bureau officials were working with the Tribe, advocating
513:
236:, which applies to "intra agency memoranda or letters", is applicable to documents within the Department of the Interior which discussed plans for the allocation of water in the
422:
72:
469:
401:
389:
377:
365:
353:
336:
493:
305:
310:
508:
433:
518:
483:
263:
233:
215:
488:
296:
Congress realized that not every secret under the previous version of FOIA would be kept secret under the newer version.
229:
35:
54:
Department of the
Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs, Petitoners, v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association
270:
100:
254:
258:
498:
149:
426:
249:
64:
8:
237:
177:
451:
141:
133:
503:
275:
173:
161:
67:
185:
153:
477:
287:
165:
460:
442:
79:
232:
case decided in 2001. The case concerned whether
Exemption 5 of the
104:
240:. The Court held unanimously that the exemption did not apply.
30:
419:
Department of
Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Assn.
225:
Department of
Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Assn.
24:
Department of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Assn.
97:
514:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
257:
solidified this relationship. When the Department's
475:
468:Decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
395:
383:
349:
347:
345:
332:
330:
328:
326:
494:United States Department of the Interior
281:
253:Reclamation over future allocations. A
509:United States Native American case law
476:
342:
323:
18:2001 United States Supreme Court case
13:
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
530:
519:Native American history of Oregon
484:United States Supreme Court cases
411:
248:The Department of the Interior's
29:
429:1 (2001) is available from:
489:2001 in United States case law
371:
359:
271:Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
1:
316:
243:
7:
299:
255:memorandum of understanding
230:United States Supreme Court
228:, 532 U.S. 1 (2001), was a
10:
535:
461:Oyez (oral argument audio)
264:Freedom of Information Act
234:Freedom of Information Act
216:Freedom of Information Act
214:
209:
198:
193:
127:
122:
116:
111:
92:
87:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
259:Bureau of Indian Affairs
311:List of FOIA Exemptions
43:Argued January 20, 2001
250:Bureau of Reclamation
78:121 S. Ct. 1060; 149
45:Decided March 5, 2001
282:Opinion of the Court
238:Klamath River Basin
178:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
150:Sandra Day O'Connor
269:In reversing, the
202:Souter, joined by
138:Associate Justices
221:
220:
134:William Rehnquist
526:
465:
459:
456:
450:
447:
441:
438:
432:
405:
399:
393:
387:
381:
375:
369:
363:
357:
351:
340:
334:
278:being released.
123:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
534:
533:
529:
528:
527:
525:
524:
523:
474:
473:
463:
457:
454:
448:
445:
439:
436:
430:
414:
409:
408:
400:
396:
388:
384:
376:
372:
364:
360:
352:
343:
335:
324:
319:
306:Ninth Amendment
302:
284:
246:
176:
174:Clarence Thomas
164:
162:Anthony Kennedy
152:
142:John P. Stevens
83:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
532:
522:
521:
516:
511:
506:
501:
496:
491:
486:
472:
471:
466:
413:
412:External links
410:
407:
406:
394:
382:
370:
358:
341:
321:
320:
318:
315:
314:
313:
308:
301:
298:
283:
280:
245:
242:
219:
218:
212:
211:
207:
206:
200:
196:
195:
191:
190:
189:
188:
186:Stephen Breyer
154:Antonin Scalia
139:
136:
131:
125:
124:
120:
119:
114:
113:
109:
108:
94:
90:
89:
85:
84:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
531:
520:
517:
515:
512:
510:
507:
505:
502:
500:
499:Klamath River
497:
495:
492:
490:
487:
485:
482:
481:
479:
470:
467:
462:
453:
444:
435:
434:CourtListener
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:
403:
398:
391:
386:
379:
374:
367:
362:
355:
350:
348:
346:
338:
333:
331:
329:
327:
322:
312:
309:
307:
304:
303:
297:
294:
289:
279:
277:
272:
267:
265:
260:
256:
251:
241:
239:
235:
231:
227:
226:
217:
213:
208:
205:
201:
197:
192:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
140:
137:
135:
132:
130:Chief Justice
129:
128:
126:
121:
115:
110:
106:
102:
99:
95:
91:
86:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
418:
397:
385:
373:
361:
292:
288:David Souter
285:
268:
247:
224:
223:
222:
210:Laws applied
203:
194:Case opinion
181:
169:
166:David Souter
157:
145:
88:Case history
71:
53:
15:
478:Categories
317:References
244:Background
204:unanimous
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
417:Text of
402:532 U.S.
390:532 U.S.
378:531 U.S.
366:531 U.S.
354:532 U.S.
337:532 U.S.
300:See also
286:Justice
199:Majority
105:9th Cir.
504:Klamath
443:Findlaw
276:opinion
112:Holding
464:
458:
455:
452:Justia
449:
446:
440:
437:
431:
404:at 17.
392:at 16.
380:at 12.
184:
182:·
180:
172:
170:·
168:
160:
158:·
156:
148:
146:·
144:
425:
368:at 4.
356:at 7.
339:at 6.
293:their
107:1999)
93:Prior
427:U.S.
118:Act.
101:1034
98:F.3d
96:189
73:more
65:U.S.
63:532
423:532
480::
421:,
344:^
325:^
82:87
103:(
76:)
70:(
68:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.