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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule concerning the operation of structures that were used to withdraw water from various sources for the cooling of industrial equipment. Due to potential adverse effects on protected species, the EPA was required to obtain biological opinions from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (defendant) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (defendant) on whether the proposed action would put any species in jeopardy. In 2013, after various meetings, calls, and correspondence between the agencies, the EPA made changes to its proposed rule. However, both the FWS and NMFS drafted new biological opinions suggesting that certain species were likely to be jeopardized. These drafts were never formally approved or sent to the EPA. After further discussions, the EPA revised the proposed rule again in 2014. In response, the FWS and NMFS issued formal biological opinions stating that no jeopardy to species would result from implementation of the proposed rule. Sierra Club, Inc. (plaintiff) made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records pertaining to the agency consultations. The FWS and NMFS responded by releasing thousands of documents but withheld other records—including the 2013 draft opinions—on the ground of deliberative-process privilege. Both the federal district court and the court of appeals ruled that most of the withheld records were not protected by deliberative-process privilege. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.