Legal basis for FBI report being kept secret?

[Frylock]

The FBI report on Kavanaugh is in a safe in a secured room where phones aren’t allowed, and it’s said that it will likely never be made public.

What’s the legal basis for keeping it secret? Why wouldn’t an FOIA request be able to uncover its contents?

[Ravenman]

Are you asking as a GQ, or you want a debate?

As a factual matter, the Privacy Act generally prohibits the disclosure of personal information of whom the Government has collected information.

Further, the Freedom of Information Act contains exceptions, including:

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

On first blush, I would see that an investigation into a person would generally involve looking into personal matters, and the law generally seeks to not throw that out there without that person’s consent.

[CoolHandCox]

I think the fact that it is not being made public applies to all the background checks the FBI does, not just this one - at least as far as SC nominees goes. None of Kavanaugh’s previous background check are available for public viewing. (To be clear, I’m not talking about this report being in a secure room, that’s probably so there’s a lesser chance of it leaking). The basis appears to be that’s just the way it’s done.

Here is what Slate says (bolding mine):

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared Tuesday that the report would be kept confidential to senators’ eyes only, as is practice, and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley concurred on Wednesday.

“I’ve been reading FBI reports for 38 years,” Grassley said. “I don’t know that one’s ever been made public.”

Both he and McConnell are correct that protocol calls for background check results to be kept confidential. But some senators said this week that the extraordinary importance of this background check should merit some sort of redacted release. Obviously, this is what most Democrats are saying—but some Republicans believe it, too.

How the FBI’s Kavanaugh Report Could Become Public

[John_Mace]

And there is very good, practical reason for the state to keep these confidential-- to ensure people are willing to testify. Remember, no one is required to answer questions in an FBI background check. Promising confidentiality ensures that some folks who would otherwise not agree to testify, or who might alter their testimony if they knew it was made public, will cooperate with the FBI. In this particular case, the only alleged eye witness to the Ford allegation, Mark Judge, agreed to testify on the condition of confidentiality. Would we prefer a report without his testimony?

The exemption to the FOIA that Ravenman linked to makes complete sense.

[TruCelt]

Here’s a good summary of the privacy protections and when they were put in place:

The single copy of the FBI's Kavanaugh report is behind closed doors. Here's...