Bibles, Oregon Dir., Bureau of Land Mgmt. v. Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n, 519 U.S. 355 (1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Bibles, Oregon Dir., Bureau of Land Mgmt. v. Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n, 519 U.S. 355 (1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
216 citation events (204 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Pomares v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs (casd, 2025-06-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pomares v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs
S.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Plaintiff Has Not Shown the Public Interest in Disclosure 13 Outweighs the Asserted Privacy Interest 14 Because the VA has shown there is a nontrivial privacy interest in the redacted 15 information, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show that the public interest in disclosure 16 outweighs the asserted privacy interest. “[T]he only relevant public interest in the FOIA 17 balancing analysis is the extent to which disclosure of the information sought would shed 18 light on an agency’s performance of its statutory duties or otherwise let citizens know what 19 their government is up to.” Roj…
cited Cited as authority (rule) The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
S.D.N.Y. · 2023 · confidence medium
Desert Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 355-356 (1997)) (alterations in original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Satterlee v. Internal Revenue Service
W.D. Mo. · 2022 · confidence medium
Desert Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 355-56 (1997)); accord Solers, Inc. v. I.R.S., 827 F.3d 323, 332 (4th Cir. 2016) (“The public interest is served to ‘the extent to which disclosure of the information sought would she[d] light on an agency’s performance of its statutory duties or otherwise let citizens know what their government is up to.’”) (quoting U.S. Dep’t of Defense v. Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Niskanen Center v. FERC
D.C. Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
Desert Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 355-56 (1997) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Parks Conservation Association v. US Department of the Navy (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
W.D. Wash. · 2020 · confidence medium
Natural Desert 8 Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 355-56 (1997)). 9 In this case, the questions before the Court are (i) whether that public interest is 10 served by compelled production of the identities of records custodians and junior-ranking 11 Navy personnel who authored, received, or were copied on emails, memoranda, or other 12 materials that have been redacted or withheld, and (ii) whether that public interest 13 outweighs the privacy interests of the individuals involved.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wp Company LLC v. U.S. Small Business Administration
D.D.C. · 2020 · confidence medium
Desert Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 356 (1997)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vietnam Veterans of America v. Defense
D. Conn. · 2020 · confidence medium
Desert Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 355-56 (1997)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Immigration Lawyers Association v. Executive Office for Immigration Review
D.D.C. · 2014 · confidence medium
Natural Desert Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 356 (1997)) (Exemption 6 balancing 6 inquiry “limited to the question [of] whether disclosure will shed light on the ‘agency’s performance of its statutory duties’”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maryland Attorney General Opinion 97 OAG 095
Md. Att'y Gen. · 2012 · confidence medium
In Bibles v. Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 355-56 (1997), the Bureau of Land Management had denied a private organization’s request for the agency’s mailing list of individuals who had signed up to receive a newsletter.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Yonemoto v. Department of Veterans Affairs (4×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Natural Desert Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 355-56 (1997) (per curiam) (quotation marks and citations omitted, alteration in original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles v. Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner
D.D.C. · 2010 · confidence medium
Natural Desert Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 356 (1997) (holding that the requestor’s purpose is of no importance in a FOIA balancing analysis under Exemption 6); U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. For Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 771-72 (1989) (discussing the irrelevance of the requestor’s purpose when analyzing whether an invasion of privacy is warranted under Exemption 7(C)); Loving v. Dep’t of Def., 550 F.3d 32, 40 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lahr v. Ntsb (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Natural Desert Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355, 355-56 (1997) (per curiam) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Norton
D.C. Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Viewed narrowly, as merely enhancing NAHB’s lobbying efforts, this purpose does not relate to “the only relevant public interest in the FOIA balancing analysis”-the extent to which disclosure would shed light on the “agency’s performance of its statutory duties.” Id. at 355-56, 117 S.Ct. at 795 (citations omitted).
examined Cited "see" Bos. Globe Media Partners, LLC v. Dep't of Pub. Health (3×)
Mass. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bibles v. Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n , 519 U.S. 355 , 355-356, 117 S.Ct. 795 , 136 L.Ed.2d 825 (1997) (per curiam), quoting Federal Labor Relations Auth. , 510 U.S. at 497 , 114 S.Ct. 1006 ("the only relevant public interest in the FOIA balancing analysis is the extent to which disclosure of the information sought would shed light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties or otherwise let citizens know what their government is up to" [quotations and alteration omitted] ).
examined Cited "see" Cameranesi v. United States Department of Defense (4×)
9th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bibles v. Oregon Natural Desert Association, 519 U.S. 355, 355-56 , 117 S.Ct. 795 , 136 L.Ed.2d 825 (1997) (per curiam); Department of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487, 497-98 , 114 S.Ct. 1006 , 127 L.Ed.2d 325 (1994); Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. at 774-75 , 109 S.Ct. 1468 .
examined Cited "see" Cameranesi v. United States Department of Defense (4×)
9th Cir. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bibles v. Oregon Natural Desert Association, 519 U.S. 355, 355-56 , 117 S.Ct. 795 , 136 L.Ed.2d 825 (1997) (per curiam); Department of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487, 497-98 , 114 S.Ct. 1006 , 127 L.Ed.2d 325 (1994); Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. at 774-75 , 109 S.Ct. 1468 .
examined Cited "see" Yonemoto v. Department of Veterans Affairs (6×)
9th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bibles, 519 U.S. at 355-56 , 117 S.Ct. 795 .
examined Cited "see" Yonemoto v. Department of Veterans Affairs (6×)
9th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bibles, 519 U.S. at 355-56 , 117 S.Ct. 795 .
discussed Cited "see" Oregon Natural Desert Association v. D. Dean Bibles, Oregon State Director, Bureau of Land Management (2×)
9th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bibles v. Oregon Natural Desert Association, -U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 795 , 136 L.Ed.2d 825 (1997).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Lahr v. National Transportation Safety Board (3×)
9th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Bibles, 519 U.S. 355 -56, 117 S.Ct. 795 , 136 L.Ed.2d 825 (mailing lists); FLRA, 510 U.S. at 502 , 114 S.Ct. 1006 (home addresses); Painting Indus. of Haw.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
D. Dean Bibles, Director, Oregon Bureau of Land Management
v.
Oregon Natural Desert Association
96-713.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 18, 1997.
519 U.S. 355
Per Curiam.
Cited by 69 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

In this case, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C. § 552(b)(6), did not forbid disclosure of a mailing list maintained by petitioner for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and sought by respondent, the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA). In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied upon the “substantial public interest in knowing to whom the government is directing information, or as ONDA characterizes it, ‘propaganda,’ so that those persons may receive information from other sources that do not share the BLM’s self-interest in presenting government activities in the most favorable light” 83 F. 3d 1168, 1171 (1996) (emphasis added). “There is,” the Court of Appeals said, “a significant public interest in knowing with whom the government has chosen to communicate and in providing those persons with additional information . . ..” Id., at 1172 (emphasis added).

These statements, which are the sum total of the Court of Appeals’ analysis of the public interest in disclosure, make clear that the court’s judgment rested on a perceived public interest in “providing [persons on the BLM’s mailing list] with additional information.” That is inconsistent with our opinion in Department of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U. S. 487 (1994), which said that “the only relevant public interest in the FOIA balancing analysis” is “the extent to which disclo[*356] sure of the information sought would ‘she[d] light on an agency’s performance of its statutory duties’ or otherwise let citizens know ‘what their government is up to.’ ” Id., at 497 (emphasis added) (quoting Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U. S. 749, 773 (1989)). “‘[T]he purposes for which the request for information is made,”’ we said, have no bearing on whether information must be disclosed under FOIA. 510 U. S., at 496 (quoting Reporters Comm, for Freedom of Press, supra, at 771).

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.