Supreme Court

The Supreme Court vs. Freedom of Information

The justices undermine a core constitutional protection in McBurney v. Young.

|

Let's say a resident of New York drives to Virginia in order to visit relatives and a member of her family uses her car to visit a prostitute one night and ends up getting arrested. The owner has zero knowledge of this illegal activity and is of course never charged with any crime, let alone convicted of one, yet the police still seize the car as part of an asset forfeiture proceeding. That's the controversial tool allowing law enforcement to take private property suspected of being used to facilitate a crime without first obtaining a criminal conviction against the owner of that property. Shouldn't the New York-based car owner be permitted to file a Virginia Freedom of Information Act request as part of her efforts to get her property back? Not in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a unanimous decision handed down this week, the Supreme Court undermined Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of citizens in the several States," by upholding a Virginia law forbidding out-of-state residents from obtaining public documents via the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The case of McBurney v. Young arose when Mark Burney, a former resident of Virginia now living in Rhode Island, sought to obtain government documents to help settle a child support dispute with his ex-wife, who was still living in Virginia. The state's Division of Child Support Enforcement denied his FOIA request on the grounds that Burney lived outside of the Old Dominion. A second plaintiff in the case, Roger Hurlbert of California, operates a business that obtains real estate tax records for paying clients. His FOIA requests were also denied based on his residency.

In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court sided with the state, holding that Virginia possesses a legitimate interest in curtailing FOIA requests and that the state restriction does not violate any of the fundamental rights protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause. "It seems clear," wrote Justice Samuel Alito, "that the distinction that the statute makes between citizens and noncitizens has a distinctly nonprotectionist aim. The state FOIA essentially represents a mechanism by which those who ultimately hold sovereign power (i.e., the citizens of the Commonwealth) may obtain an accounting from the public officials to whom they delegate the exercise of that power."

The problem with this argument is that it ignores the long and invasive reach of state officials, as illustrated by the asset forfeiture example given above. Out-of-state residents who run afoul of Virginia laws are simply out of luck.

And what about Virginia residents who happen to have retained out-of-state attorneys? National public-interest law firms routinely take on local cases in order to draw attention to particular forms of government malfeasance, whether it's racial profiling or eminent domain abuse. The law at issue in this case severely impedes their ability to mount a meaningful legal case. Indeed, one such national law firm, the libertarian Institute for Justice, filed a friend of the court brief in McBurney urging the Supreme Court to strike down the Virginia law precisely because it hamstrings the important work of public-interest litigators such as IJ, the NAACP, and many others. "The ability of Americans to determine whether local officials have treated them in a manner consistent with the federal Constitution," the IJ brief argues, "may depend on someone from out-of-state obtaining public records regarding the performance of governmental responsibilities."

A similar argument applies to the work of investigative journalists, who frequently report on out-of-state events. To that end, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, along with 53 other media organizations, including the Associated Press, the New York Times Company, and The Daily Caller, submitted their own friend of the court brief in the case urging the nullification of the Virginia restriction. "By allowing states to enact open records laws that discriminate against non-residents," the journalists' brief observes, "the Court will be sanctioning a practice that directly harms the media's ability to gather and disseminate news that provides a full and accurate account of regional and national events."

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has now sanctioned that harmful practice. It's a bad day for all Americans when government power triumphs so thoroughly over the ability of citizens to vindicate their rights.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

21 responses to “The Supreme Court vs. Freedom of Information

  1. It’s a bad day for all Americans when government power triumphs so thoroughly over the ability of citizens to vindicate their rights.

    By that definition, it’s a bad day almost every day.

    1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Tuesday I bought a gorgeous Lancia Straton from earning $4331 this – 5 weeks past. I began this 7-months ago and right away started to earn at least $69, per-hr. I use this website,, http://Mojo50.com

      1. I would file a FOIA request to verify that, but it would be denied.

  2. Federalism is not supposed to squirt out of the SCOTUS this way.

  3. Could a third party that is a citizen of Virginia file a state FOIA request for an out of state party? I’m unfamiliar with the requirements for FOIA, but do you need to have a compelling interest? If not, I assume law firms based in Virginia will offer services to file FOIA requests in the state.

    1. Just a guess here, but if you are not involved in the action then you might not have standing, but not sure how that works with FOIA.

      1. Ya I’m not sure. Maybe someone more familiar with FOIA could find out.

        1. I’ve never filed a FOIA. Maybe there is a staff member of a respected news organization reading this who can enlighten us.

          1. respected news organization

            Do you know where you are?

    2. The answer to your first question is Yes. It came up at oral argument several times. FOIA of VA and other states for that matter is not predicated on any notion of standing, and most FOI statutes for that matter explicitly prohibit asking about the intent or purpose of the person seeking information.

  4. I really have zero respect for the Nazgul. Once I had some, but no more.

  5. KK, if you are still around, check your email.

  6. The court’s duty is to defend the government from the people. Judicial deference and all that. They throw us a bone once in a while just for appearances, but their allegiance is to power not liberty.

    1. The courts, including SCOTUS, are becoming so subservient that it makes you wonder if all the dirt collected by the NSA could possibly have multiple uses.

      Could it also be used to persuade people including some judges to provide a specious rationalization of legality, or to take other courses of action they might not otherwise. But is persuade the right word?

  7. The one thing that I do get out of this, if it holds, is the SC has claimed that non-citizens of states do not have rights in those states,so by extension then non-citizens of the United States should have no rights within these states unlike some who claim the constitution applies to all people, citizen or not. Unfortunetly in these sad times many would probably make the case that a non-citizen have more rights than a citizen, that is the actual case in California where the state will pay for an illegal to go to college but not for a legal citizen

    1. Somehow those extensions don’t work like hair extensions, or seatbelt extensions. They turn into something completely different.

  8. For the cases involving legal disputes, such as the Virginia asset forfeiture case, I assume that the New York resident has to hire local counsel to pursue his claim (assuming he’s not foolish enough to go pro se). Why doesn’t that local counsel have a paralegal make the FOIA request, so it is done by a Virginia resident?

    Any barriers to an interstate FOIA cooperative? Someone can do my requests for California, and I’ll do theirs for Texas, etc.

  9. my best friend’s step-sister makes $77 every hour on the computer. She has been without work for ten months but last month her check was $16080 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more go to this site home tab for more detail— http://WWW.BIG76.COM

  10. what Elaine replied I’m blown away that a student able to earn $5519 in a few weeks on the internet. have you read this web link.. http://www.ask22.com

  11. what Timothy explained I’m shocked that people can get paid $4663 in a few weeks on the computer. have you seen this web link… http://www.up444.c?m

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.