Does the statutory term 'confidential' in FOIA Exemption 4 bear its ordinary meaning, regardless of substantial competitive harm?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has not yet addressed Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, which protects from disclosure all “confidential” private-sector “commercial or financial information” within the Government’s possession. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). The Circuits, however, have adopted a definition of “confidential” that departs from the term’s ordinary meaning, holding that this exemption applies only if disclosure is “likely * * * to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of” the source of the information. Nat’ Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974). The D.C. Circuit fashioned this atextual test from its own sense of FOIA’s purposes based on witness testimony in a legislative hearing about a predecessor bill from a prior Congress. The amorphous test has produced at least five different circuit splits as the Circuits have grappled with what constitutes a likelihood of substantial competitive harm. The questions presented are: 1. Does the statutory term “confidential” in FOIA Exemption 4 bear its ordinary meaning, thus requiring the Government to withhold all “commercial or financial information” that is confidentially held and not publicly of whether a party establishes substantial competitive harm from disclosure—which would resolve at least five circuit splits? 2. Alternatively, if the Court retains the test, is that test satisfied when the requested information could be potentially useful to a competitor (as the First and Tenth Circuits have held), or must the party opposing disclosure establish with near certainty a defined competitive harm like lost market share (as the Ninth and D.C. Circuits have held, and as the Eighth Circuit required here)? (i)