The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employs more than 14,000 air traffic controllers. Historically, the FAA filled these positions based on candidates’ relevant skill sets, but the agency changed its hiring system in 2014 as part of a diversity initiative. Rather than formulate its new screening system directly, the FAA outsourced most of the work to a government contractor.

After the FAA denied his application, Jorge Rojas filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, seeking information regarding how the contractor developed the agency’s new employment test. Although FOIA generally requires government transparency, the law contains multiple exemptions from disclosure, including deliberative communications that are “intra-agency.” In denying Mr. Rojas’s request, the FAA claimed that this “intra-agency” exemption extends to government contractors. On its face, the FAA’s reading of FOIA makes no sense—a government contractor cannot be considered “intra-agency.” More broadly, this is the latest attempt by a federal agency to weaken FOIA and thereby evade accountability.

Mr. Rojas brought a legal challenge against the FAA’s purported “consultant corollary” to FOIA’s exemptions, but the federal district court sided with the government. Mr. Rojas appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where a three-judge panel reversed the district court. But then the full Ninth Circuit reversed the three-judge panel. Despite conceding that the consultant corollary isn’t “the most natural” reading of the text, a majority of judges on the full court nonetheless held that the FAA’s interpretation achieves the perceived purpose of the statute. Again, this makes no sense, as FOIA’s purpose is transparency, while the government’s interpretation achieves the opposite.

Now, Mr. Rojas seeks Supreme Court review. Today, the Cato Institute filed a brief in support of his petition. We urge the Court to close the “consultant corollary” loophole through FOIA.