On April 13, 1971, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the district court had improperly exempted the Office of Science and Technology (OST) from compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552. Soucie v. David, 1 ELR 41001-02. The lower court had sustained OST's refusal to furnish plaintiff with a copy of the Garwin Report, a scientific study commissioned by the president on the proposed supersonic transport plane (SST), holding that the OST is not an "agency" for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, but is instead a part of the Executive Office of the President, and that the Garwin Report was protected from compulsory disclosure by the doctrine of executive privilege.

In reversing and remanding, the court of appeals held that the OST was in fact an agency for purposes of the Act and that the Garwin Report was an agency record. On remand, the court of appeals instructed the district court to consider whether the report was protected in whole or in part by the specific exemptions set forth in the Act. Of particular interest in the decision was the expansive interpretation given by the court to the disclosure provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the narrow construction placed upon the nine exemptions listed in §552(b). 1 ELR 41001. Soundly conceived and articulately worded, the court's instructions to the district court upon remand should help clarify some areas of confusion surrounding the Act, while providing a firm philosophical context for the resolution of others. Individuals and groups seeking environmental information from the various administrative agencies are certain to find the decision helpful when they encounter what an earlier court referred to as "the inevitable temptation of a government litigant to give [the exemption provisions of the Act] an expansive interpretation in relation to the particular records at issues." Ackerly v. Ley, 420 F.2d 1336, 1341 (D.D.C. 1969).