U.S. FOIA committee contemplates research, reform

The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee, on which I serve as a non-governmental member, held a public meeting Thursday, live-streamed and recorded on YouTube, and there's a lot cooking, including research on unduly burdensome requests and compliance barriers, and recommendations for statutory reform.

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Chief Operating Officer Jay Trainer spoke at the opening of the meeting. He observed a rise in overall public trust in the federal government from 23% in 2024 to 33% in 2025 in Gallup survey results and lauded the role of the FOIA and the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) in building trust in the federal government.

I agree with him. But I also agree with Kevin Bell, a former member of the Advisory Committee who this year resigned his government post at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and thus his government seat on the Advisory Committee. Bell's resignation to me demonstrated how the Elon Musk-led administration efficiency initiative cost us talented public servants while doing little actually to achieve efficiency, or even while thereby undermining efficiency.

Bell spoke in the public comment period of the public meeting and observed that the poll results are somewhat skewed, in that people probably answer the question with outsized reference to elected officials and little knowledge of the civil service. His supposition is support by the fact that digging into the poll data shows that the uptick since 2024 is largely in a swell in Republican confidence. And what has changed since 2024 is the political landscape, not the workaday civil service, whatever Muskian bluster might have us believe.

However, Bell pointed out, if Americans really knew what civil servants do everyday, as demonstrated by the informed dedication of the public employees who serve on the Advisory Committee, the poll numbers would indicate vastly higher confidence in the federal government than one in three Americans.

By the way, that's not to say that there isn't room for efficiency improvements, including cuts, in the federal government. There are plenty of ways to do that without depriving the taxpayers of their best workers. Corporate welfare would be a good starting point, or at least a shift in those subsidies to investments that would stimulate exactly the kind of economic growth the Trump administration purports to desire. That's another story.

Maybe it's because I am teaching comparative law right now, but I was delighted to hear a comparative perspective in the work of the volume-and-frequency subcommittee, among the three subcommittees the Advisory Committee has organized. 

Regarding volume and frequency, the Advisory Committee heard a presentation by members David Cuillier, University of Florida, and Shelley Kimball, Johns Hopkins University, as well as guest Ben Worthy, University of London, on their work, also with Suzanne Piotrowski, Rutgers University, on "unduly burdensome" requests—also known as "vexatious requests," though that term is not preferred because of its normative hint of ill intention. Piotrowski, incidentally, is the founding coordinator of the Global Conference on Transparency Research; I posted GCTR's call for papers for 2026 here at The Savory Tort earlier this month.

Cuillier, Kimball, Worthy, and Piotrowski's research is ongoing, but thus far they have drawn up a list of strategies that might help to manage the problem of unduly burdensome requests, and a list of strategies that do not work, or that represent non-constructive policy choices. They shared with the committee these strategies that are positive or might have potential is implemented thoughtfully (my comments bracketed):

• Training (for staff and public)
• Technology/resources (e.g., line-item budget)
• Proactive posting
• Front-end discussions
• Express lanes [expediting some requests, such as first-person] and "zippering" [managing one request from a multiple requester, then another from another requester, then another from the multiple requester, then another from another requester, and so on]
• Staggered dissemination
• Differential copy fees
• Independent commission (e.g., Connecticut [Freedom of Information Commission])

These are ill advised strategies, some of which, concerningly, are growing go-tos:

• Search/redaction fees
• Vague laws to allow denial
• Time extensions
• Quotas/caps
• Fines and jail time
• Signed promises to be good
• Prohibitions on anonymous requests
• Bans on AI

Another problematic strategy is to probe the intentions, or motives, of the requester for some kind of legitimacy measure. Co-authors and I opined 15 years ago on requester motive immateriality as a core common law and statutory norm of access law, and it should be preserved. It makes no sense to give a record to one requester and not to another, owing to motive, and risks discriminatory judgment about the merits of record use. A record's public disposition should be decided on its content, within its four corners.

The research is inherently comparative owing to Worthy's involvement as a scholar of the UK Freedom of Information Act. But the authors' multinational cognizance is broader still. For example, the team is studying standards employed by the Connecticut commission that Connecticut borrowed from Canadian law in Ontario.

Cuillier mentioned that other countries almost uniformly distinguish commercial requesters, that is, those which will make money from information processing, such as information brokers, from first-person and public-interest requesters, with regard to fees. The former fairly might be required to pay their way, while the latter may be entitled to free access. Co-authors and I also memorialized in our previous work how this commercial-requester distinction worked a modest but justifiable compromise to the historical common law and statutory norm of requester identity neutrality. However laudable that norm in theory, it predated the information era, when information brokering became a business model.

Advisory Committee member and Professor Margaret Kwoka asked whether the researchers and subcommittee were parsing their conception of fees, understanding that, my words: not all fees are created equal. That is, a fee might be used for a laudable purpose, such as having a commercial requester pay its way, or, in contrast, for an objectionable purpose, such as discouraging public access generally.

In discussion of the point, Worthy referenced Ireland's experiment changing a free access under the Irish Freedom of Information Act to a flat fee of €15 in 2003. The purported objective, he said, was to deter unduly burdensome requests. But there was little evidence that happened. What did happen was a 75% drop across all requests. Cuillier said that Irish usage of the public records law still has not rebounded since the fee was rescinded. Yet, he added, Canadian provinces are now busy about adopting fees upon the same ill-informed theory.

Slides from Cuillier, et al.'s presentation are available on the volume-and-frequency subcommittee are available on the Sept. 11, 2025, meeting page of the FOIA Advisory Committee. They include QR codes to locate three papers the researchers have presented previously, two at the GCTR conference in Brussels in May 2024, and one at the conference of the Southern Political Science Association in Puerto Rico in January 2025. The volume-and-frequency subcommittee is co-chaired by Advisory Committee members Nick Wittenberg, corporate counsel at Armedia, and Nieva Brock, Associate General Counsel at the Defense Department.

For the statutory reform subcommittee, Advisory Committee members Ryan Mulvey, policy counsel for Americans for Prosperity, reported several subjects on which the subcommittee aims to draft recommendations:

• Adding affirmative disclosure categories
• Making FOIA logs available affirmatively
• Ensuring judicial review of affirmative disclosure, that is, FOIA "reading rooms"
• Incentivizing alternative to FOIA requests
• Assisting agencies with Rehabilitation Act accessibility compliance
• Empowering agency officials to make affirmative disclosures
• Making the FOIA Advisory Committee a non-discretionary federal advisory committee

The statutory reform subcommittee is co-chaired by Mulvey and Advisory Committee member Whitney Frazier-Jenkins, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which, by the way, is a high-achieving if lesser-known agency in FOIA compliance.

For the implementation subcommittee, Advisory Committee member Deborah Moore, chief FOIA officer for the Department of Education, reported on an initiative to study barriers to FOIA implementation by engaging with focus groups of FOIA officers within agencies. Kimball and Advisory Committee member Sarah Jones Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, designed the research project, in which I will participate this fall.

Also for the implementation subcommittee, I reported on the Comment of Freedom of Information Scholars submitted by academic colleagues and me regarding the ongoing revision of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, reported here at The Savory Tort in July and now also among public comments to OGIS for the Advisory Committee. The subcommittee is co-chaired by Jason Baron, University of Maryland, who co-signed the comment, along with Cuillier, Kimball, and Kwoka, and by Marianne Manheim, supervisory government information specialist at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Advisory Committee member Frank LoMonte, a recovering academic now senior counsel at CNN, also gave invaluable advice on the comment.

This was the sixth meeting of the sixth term of the Advisory Committee. The next public meeting is scheduled for December 4, at 10 a.m. U.S. EST. Public comments are invited online at OGIS and at public meetings. Read more about the Advisory Committee, its members, and OGIS FOIA compliance work at the OGIS blog, The FOIA Ombuds. The Advisory Committee is chaired by OGIS Director Alina Semo and afforded essential coordination by the many-hatted Kirsten Mitchell, compliance team lead, federal FOIA ombudsman, and designated federal officer at OGIS.

Transparency research conference issues CFP for '26

The Ninth Global Conference on Transparency Research has issued its call for papers.

The conference is set for June 24-26, 2026, at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. The conference theme is "Transparency Under Pressure."

The deadline for paper and panel submissions is January 20, 2026, with final papers of 7,000 or fewer words due April 20, 2026. The CFP suggests a non-exhaustive list of topics:

• Transparency and crises
• Transparency and governance
• Transparency, secrecy, and privacy
• Open government and e-government
• Freedom of Information and access to data
• Transparency and artificial intelligence
• Transparency and digital surveillance
• Transparency in political institutions
• Transparency and corruption 

The Global Conference on Transparency Research was founded under the direction of my esteemed colleague Suzanne J. Piotrowski (pictured), professor at Rutgers School of Public Affairs and Administration, and director of the Transparency and Governance Center.

The first conference convened at Rutgers–Newark in 2011. The conference hosts an always warm and collegial group of scholars who study transparency and accountability from a broad range of disciplines, embracing both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Regulatory overhaul opens opportunity to build 'transparency by design' into federal contracting

Google Gemini CC0

Colleagues and I submitted a comment to the federal government yesterday urging recognition of the freedom of information, that is, "transparency by design," in government acquisition of information and communication technology. 

The White House has ordered the overhaul, or streamlining, of the federal procurement process, ideally through simplification of the voluminous and complex Federal Acquisition Regulation. 

The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council is working over the regulations part by part with "deviation guidelines," allowing agencies room to depart from regulations until a proper regulatory rewrite can be accomplished—something that typically takes years—and inviting feedback on a rolling basis. Part 39, for which model deviation recently issued, covers the acquisition of information and communication technology.

The Administration's aim is a "Revolutionary FAR Overhaul" to "Restor[e] Common Sense to Federal Procurement." The government website Acquisition.gov explains (original emphasis):

Led by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council), this initiative will return the FAR to its statutory roots, rewritten in plain language, and remove most non-statutory rules.  In addition, non-regulatory buying guides will provide practical strategies grounded in common sense while remaining outside the FAR.

The goal is clear: faster acquisitions, greater competition, and better results.

Naturally, there is concern by skeptics of the Administration that the overhaul is only a smokescreen to loosen the reins on corporate contractors and grease the wheels of profit off the public fisc.

Regardless of the realpolitik, the Administration at least represents that it wants transparency, which should facilitate a free market and accountability in federal contracting. Like the "DOGE" initiative, the ends are laudable, even if the means are debatable.

Thus, in the shared spirit of efficient governance, colleagues and I sought to remind the FAR Council and OFPP that FOIA already provides for access to agency records in the hands of contractors. However, the reality, exaggerated in the information age, is that public and exempt data often are so commingled as practically to preclude disclosure. At best, efficiency is compromised, wasting public resources. At worst, malfeasance is let to fester.

The problem is not new; I wrote in 2006 (page 731) about a once well known 1993 case of access to contractor data under state freedom of information law in event of a public emergency. The European Union has had a regulation in place for more than 20 years to ensure that public access to records is preserved through "transparency by design" in EU record-keeping.

Transparency by design should be a bedrock principle of government contracting at every level, especially in the information age. Politicians might disagree about what to spend public money on, but transparency and accountability after the fact is a non-partisan imperative.

Below is the full text of the Comment of Freedom of Information Scholars on FAR Overhaul part 39 (submitted July 28, 2025). My interdisciplinary co-authors are Jason R. Baron, J.D., professor of the practice at the University of Maryland College of Information; David Cuillier, Ph.D., director of the Freedom of Information Project, Brechner Center for the Advancement of the First Amendment, at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Mass Communication; Shelley Kimball, Ph.D., associate program director and senior lecturer at the Johns Hopkins Krieger School of Arts and Sciences; and Margaret Kwoka, J.D., Lawrence “Larry” Herman Professor in Law at the Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University.

---

Comment of Scholars of Freedom of Information Law
on FAR Overhaul, Part 39
July 28, 2025

    We, the undersigned, are scholars of freedom of information law. We suggest that the federal acquisition process would benefit from recognition of agency responsibilities to comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, which would promote the use of technology to make fulfillment of agencies’ FOIA duties less costly and time-consuming, at a significant manpower savings to the taxpayer.

    Although the FAR, 48 C.F.R. ch. 1, provides for the inclusion of a clause in solicitations and contracts for the design, development, or operation of a system of records to accomplish an agency function subject to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (see 48 C.F.R. §§ 24.104 & 52.224-1), it appears that there is no comparable FAR provision addressing an agency’s obligation under FOIA to provide access to federal agency records. As the federal government has increased its reliance on electronic data systems, it is important, in the interest of transparency, to ensure that agencies have the means effectively and efficiently to pull information out of these systems in response to FOIA requests. One way to do that is to require federal agencies to consider their responsibilities under FOIA when they set out to acquire information technology, especially communication technology.

    In 2020, we understand that the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA) recommended to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that FAR part 39 be revised to recognize FOIA obligations. Specifically, NARA proposed, inter alia:

Agencies must ensure that contracts for designing, developing, purchasing, or operating information technology or systems, including cloud-based, and Federal or non-Federal information systems, contain requirements that facilitate FOIA processing in their system design specifications (5 U.S.C. § 552). Each agency must ensure that system design includes the following FOIA-related search and retrieval capabilities:

(1)    conduct robust searches of electronic records in response to FOIA requests;
(2)    document the search and search results; and
(3)    export the documents that result from the searches in the format the agency requires for responding to FOIA requests.

The NARA proposal was based on Recommendation 2018-03 of the FOIA Advisory Committee.  The Committee in 2018 recognized a need for “all agencies, when acquiring electronic records management software, electronic mail software, and other records related information technology, to consider features that will help facilitate the agencies’ responsibilities under FOIA to provide access to federal agency records.” Accordingly, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) drafted a business case in FY 2019 that would modify the FAR to require access to federal agency records as a consideration in the procurement process. As stated above, NARA submitted the business case to OMB in early FY 2020 for consideration by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council.

    Upon the occasion of the FAR overhaul process, as to part 39 and more generally, we suggest that government transparency and efficiency would be achieved by agency recognition of FOIA responsibilities at the time of acquisition of information and communication technology systems. “Transparency by design” in such systems obviates waste of government resources trying to comply with FOIA after the fact with systems ill designed to facilitate compliance. 

    We therefore recommend that the above specifications be included in the FAR revisions being contemplated, in the revised regulations themselves, in the newly contemplated Buyer’s Guides, or in both.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Richard J. Peltz-Steele

Richard J. Peltz-Steele, J.D.
Chancellor Professor, University of Massachusetts Law School

Jason R. Baron, J.D.
Professor of the Practice, University of Maryland College of Information

David Cuillier, Ph.D.
Director, The Freedom of Information Project, Brechner Center for the Advancement of the First Amendment, University of Florida College of Journalism and Mass Communication

Shelley Kimball, Ph.D.
Associate Program Director, Senior Lecturer, Johns Hopkins Krieger School of Arts and Sciences

Margaret Kwoka, J.D.
Lawrence “Larry” Herman Professor in Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University

Affiliations are stated for identification only, not to represent any position of the named institutions. 

Sunshine Fest shines in D.C. despite gloomy climate

Last week I attended Sunshine Fest in Washington, D.C., a conference celebrating the 20th anniversary of Sunshine Week, which recognizes the importance in a free society of the freedom of information (FOI), also known elsewhere in the world as access to information (ATI) or right to information (RTI).

The extraordinary event was a coalition effort with David Cuillier, director of The Freedom of Information Project, Brechner Center for the Advancement of the First Amendment, at the University of Florida, at the helm. The conference met at the recently renovated Johns Hopkins University property on Pennsylvania Avenue—fittingly, the former physical home of the Newseum, which closed in 2019. As the National Freedom of Information Coalition has had annual conferences online since the pandemic, the in-person Sunshine Fest was a welcome opportunity to renew old acquaintances and make new ones.

Yet Sunshine Fest came at an odd time, amid the sudden, deep, and arbitrary cuts to the federal workforce. The Chatham House Rule was in force at the transparency conference. In the run-up to the event, Cuillier in an email to participants acknowledged the irony.

Some persons with official capacities related to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) participated in the conference, but only in their personal capacities. Certainly there was a sense that FOIA is not something a federal worker can afford to add to the résumé in the present climate. It was a strange feeling to gather with people talking about open government, yet speaking in hushed tones and looking over their shoulders. That has been my experience in many places in the world, but never before in Washington, D.C.

Some recently terminated federal officials attended too, such as Bobby Talebian, who, until recently, was the head of the Office of Information Policy in the Department of Justice. In my experience, Talebian was known for cutting through the bureaucracy. So it's hard to see how his departure facilitates efficiency.

The same might be said of the termination of the Open Government Federal Advisory Committee in the General Services Administration. It's hard to see how shutting down an advisory committee on transparency, which enlists the labor of private volunteers in public work, strikes a blow for efficiency rather than a blow to accountability. (See more at my March 7 post on the FOIA Federal Advisory Committee.)

Sunshine Fest was a success substantively as well as logistically. Speakers from all sectors participated in breakout sessions on artificial intelligence, FOIA and politics, vexatious requests, Trump and populism, privacy and transparency, and FOIA enforcement. Participants included requesters and custodians, industry and journalists, and persons working with FOI at state and federal levels and in legal systems in other countries.

David Cuillier, at lectern, opens Sunshine Fest 2025. The opening

plenary included Alasdair Roberts and Toby Mendel, from left.

RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

In an opening session moderated by UMass Amherst Professor Alasdair S. Roberts, who had joined my international law class the day before, Toby Mendel, of the Canadian Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD), formerly with Article 19, gave a concerning report on the state of RTI laws around the world.

In particular, systems in Mexico and India, formerly regarded as exemplary models, have come under attack by populist regimes. The highly regarded independent oversight board in Mexico was terminated the very day of Sunshine Fest, and the Indian system was under "serious attack," Mendel said—though the Narendra Modi administration had to back off somewhat since the last election.

Mendel said that of the 56 U.N. member states that do not have RTI laws, 30 are "extremely weak" democracies, 17 are countries with fewer than one million inhabitants, and nine are "outliers."

Yet Mendel insisted that the glass is half full, or, he said, that is how he chooses to see it. Sri Lanka, he said, now has one of the strongest RTI frameworks in the world. RTI officials there have prevailed in 24 of 25 challenges to their enforcement authority. CLD is working with UNESCO to promote RTI in small island developing states, and Fiji has a proposal on the table in its legislature. Anecdotal evidence indicates "we're on an even keel," Mendel said, despite alarming developments in the United States.

Sunshine Fest announced the creation of a "Sunshine United Network" to marshal information about transparency going forward. Expect Sunshine Week and the Brechner FOI Project to publish further findings and takeaways from Sunshine Fest soon.

UPDATE, Apr. 16, 2025: Plenary panels are now available on the Sunshine Week YouTube channel.

FOIA committee meets after firing of National Archivist

Yesterday, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, held a public meeting, available on the YouTube channel of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 

The meeting comprised routine status updates from working subcommittees. But arising as it did amid the Trump/Musk shake-up in federal government, the stream might have drawn more than the usual public interest. The President fired National Archivist Colleen Shogan three weeks ago (see also CBS News), apparently in violation of federal law and with a political logic that's hard to discern, as University of Maryland Professor Jason Baron explained recently in Washington Monthly.

The committee lost one member to the Musk "fork in the road" program; capable attorney Kevin Bell departed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The President last month terminated the Open Government Federal Advisory Committee in the General Services Administration (GSA) (Government Executive).

I am all for eliminating government waste and inefficiency, but I'm worried that "fork in the road" only incentivized the departure from public service of the most talented people, who could get other jobs most readily. And I'm not sure I see the wisdom of terminating an advisory committee, which brings volunteer expertise from the private sector (or state academics, such as Baron, me, and others) to bear on federal government work at minimal cost to taxpayers.

The committee yesterday unanimously approved a motion of Frank LoMonte, CNN senior counsel, to ensure preservation of committee work, as required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). He didn't say so explicitly, but the move seemed pretty well calculated as a hedge against possible termination of the committee's work.

Excellent public comment came from Alex Howard, Digital Democracy Project and former committee member. Logically he inquired, inter alia, about the impact of government "efficiency" cuts and website take-downs on FOIA. Certainly these questions are of great concern to everyone involved; Professor Margaret Kwoka said as much in response. The fact is, simply, I don't think anyone can yet apprehend that big picture.

FOIA Advisory Committee takes aim at volume, other challenges in access to public records

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee, serving the National Archives, held a public meeting yesterday via WebEx, and the recording is available on YouTube.

The 2024-26 committee has organized into three subcommittees: Statutory Reform, Volume and Frequency, and Implementation. I serve on the latter; yesterday, I contributed to our report on efforts to prioritize past committee recommendations and develop strategies to facilitate their implementation.

The Implementation Subcommittee grouped 18 of 64 past recommendations into priority categories of technology, for example, the implementation of AI to manage large volumes of records; workflow, for example, the implementation of strategies to manage voluminous first-person requests apart from other FOIA processing; training, for example, raising awareness about FOIA among all agency employees, not just FOIA officers; and engagement, for example, facilitating agency-requester dialog to improve efficiency and responsiveness for both parties.

The subcommittee listed 10 more recommendations as "not zero," meaning that the committee recognized them as higher than minimum priority, and doable, but they did not fall into one of the four priority categories. One such recommendation involves improving online agency instructions for FOIA requesters.

The Statutory Reform Subcommittee reported on its constitution of three working groups, focusing on processing, enforcement models, and transparency obligations. The latter is looking at the clarity of FOIA definitions, including "agency control" of records. That inquiry includes consideration of the private-prison problem, which interests me, when the federal government might have access to the records of a prison contractor.

The next public meeting of the committee is scheduled for March 6, 2025, and there will (again) be a public comment period.

Transparency never goes out of style

This autumn, I am privileged to serve as a new member of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee, a U.S. federal entity constituted under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and administered by the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

If that alphabet soup has your head spinning, then you have some sense of what it's been like for me to get up to speed in this role. That said, I'm thrilled to have the opportunity and humbled by the expertise of the committee members and OGIS staff with whom I'm serving.

I'll have more to say in time, as we have accomplishments to report. Meanwhile, though, a bit of parody art. At a meeting yesterday of the Implementation Subcommittee, ace OGIS compliance officer and former journalist Kirsten B. Mitchell related an anecdote.

A youthful person had wondered aloud that Fresca is quite old, perhaps dating to the 1980s! And Mitchell said she felt compelled to note that it is even older. In fact, the niche-beloved Coca-Cola Co. soft drink dates to the same year the FOIA was signed into law: 1966. That modest revelation prompted me to generate the above art, based on a contemporary Fresca ad that capitalizes on the drink's age ("Delicious Never Goes Out of Style"). (Above art by RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 with no claim to underlying work of Coca-Cola Co.)

The inaugural public meeting of the 2024-2026 FOIA Advisory Committee, at NARA in September, is posted on YouTube.

Book supports legal privilege for undercover reporting

Truth and Transparency, a recent book by Professors Alan K. Chen and Justin Marceau, is a comprehensive and gratifying tour of the history and law of undercover reporting.

Chen and Marceau teach at the Sturm College of Law at Denver University and have especial expertise in constitutional law, and respectively in public interest law and animal law. In their co-authorship, they examine the social phenomenon of undercover reporting that lies at the intersection of journalism, tort law, and the First Amendment—and often animal law, too.

I know Chen best for his work in opposing ag gag laws: statutes designed to stop and punish journalists, activists, and whistleblowers from investigating and revealing wrongful conduct and animal cruelty in the agricultural industry, especially by way of undercover video recording. Chen has worked against ag gag in Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, and Utah. I've been privileged to sign on to some of the amicus briefs he has coordinated.

Chen and Marceau leave no stone unturned. I was intrigued especially to read about the history of undercover reporting in the United States, the evolution of undercover reporting in its treatment in journalism ethics, and the thorough explication of undercover reporting in tort and First Amendment law.

Upton Sinclair's 1905 The Jungle, a novel based on real-life undercover reporting in the meatpacking industry, was my mind's go-to on the early history of the practice. Apropos of the present Women's History Month, however, it was female reporters such as Nellie Bly who carved out a niche for undercover reporting in the popular imagination in the late 19th century and deserve the most credit for pioneering the genre.

Bly, born Elizabeth Jane Cochran, famously had herself committed to a deplorable New York mental institution in 1887 for 10 days before a New York World lawyer secured her release, per prearrangement. Chen and Marceau recount the stories of Bly and other so-called "girl stunt reporters." They trace the history even further, as well, to antebellum abolitionists determined to expose the horrors of slavery.

Chen and Marceau explore a range of treatments of undercover reporting in journalism ethics, including the qualified permissiveness of the 1996 Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, preserved in the more recent 2014 iteration. They observe as well the almost complete prohibition on the practice at National Public Radio, where journalists may engage in deception only when necessary to protect themselves in a conflict zone, and secret recordings may be used in only extraordinary circumstances.

A case that naturally arises throughout the book is the ABC News investigation of hygienic practices at Food Lion in the 1990s (at Reporters Committee). This case was contemporary with my university study of journalism, so was front and center in my class on journalism ethics. Whether or when journalists might engage in deception to get the story is a favorite point of discussion in journalism ethics class. The problem stratifies the need for public trust in journalism across the micro layers of people who are the subjects of stories and the macro layers of readers and the public interest. 

A court in Food Lion ultimately held that ABC journalists could be sued for trespass or breach of loyalty, but awarded only nominal damages. The factual problem for the plaintiffs that precluded a more substantial damages award was that notwithstanding the concealment of their motives, the journalists had been given jobs at Food Lion, and they did their jobs. So from a damages perspective, Food Lion got what it paid for. The appellate court, unlike the trial jury, was unwilling to consider the reputational harm flowing from truthful disclosures, if deceptively obtained, as any kind of compensable loss.

The outcome in Food Lion was consistent with the broad propositions of First Amendment law that there is no right to gather the news, which is why the Freedom of Information Act is a statutory rule, not a constitutional one; and that journalists are not exempt from generally applicable expectations of law, such as honoring contracts, obeying police orders—and not trespassing. As Chen and Marceau observe, the outcome exerted a chill in investigative reporting.

However, the Food Lion rule is hardly absolute, Chen and Marceau also aptly observe. The rule of no-right-to-gather-news has never been wholly true. The courts have given media latitude to test the limits, for example disallowing wiretap liability for receiving probably illegally intercepted communications. And technological advances have complicated the picture. A majority of U.S. circuit courts now, in a post-George Floyd world, have held that the First Amendment protects video-recording police in public places. The proposition seems right, but it doesn't square with the news-gathering rule.

The outcome in Food Lion further hints at a deeper problem in tort law that Chen and Marceau explore: the problem of damages in cases of only notional harm. In contemporary doctrine, a trespass with no infliction of physical harm or loss might entitle a plaintiff to an equitable remedy of injunction, but no more than nominal damages in tort law, thus Food Lion. Though with no damages in the offing, there is no deterrence to deceptive trespass, a logic that likely explains the eventual waning of Food Lion's chilling effect. The problem bleeds into the contemporary debate over the nature of damages in personal privacy violations. 

Journalism exceptionalism resonates as well in the problem of trespass and consent. Food Lion suggests that consent to enter property is vitiated by deception as to one's motive. Chen and Marceau explore opposing academic and judicial views on the question.

In a remarkable work of empirical research unto itself, Chen and Marceau's chapter 6 presents compelling data to show overwhelming public support for undercover reporting to expose wrongdoing. Public support seems to transcend political ideology and even whether the perpetrator of deception is a journalist or activist.

Chen and Marceau argue summatively and persuasively for a qualified legal privilege to protect journalistic deception in undercover reporting. Historical, ethical, and legal authorities all point in the same direction. Even the Fourth Circuit in Food Lion hedged its bets, observing that generally applicable employment law as applied in the case had only an "incidental effect" on news-gathering; in other words, news-gathering was outweighed as a consideration, not shut out.

Technological advances and citizen journalism will continue to generate conflict among conventional norms of property and fair dealing, evolving norms of privacy, and public interest in accountability in private and public sectors. Truth and Transparency is an essential manual to navigate in this brave new world.

Smart but unconstitutional? Trump appointee inverts Scalia maxim in striking corporate transparency law

"Corporate Transparency," Seattle
by Daniel Foster via Flickr CC BY-NC 2.0

A federal district court in Alabama ruled the Corporate Transparency Act, a key anti-corruption statute, unconstitutional upon the inverse of a maxim of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

There's much commentary on the reading-people's internet about the significance of the March 1, 2024, decision, which is certain to be reviewed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The dry question of business regulation might not make the cut on the TikTok news cycle, meanwhile, but the issue is immensely important.

Effective in January 2024, the Corporate Transparency Act, part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, which in turn is part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 ("NDAA"), requires most businesses to report their "beneficial owners" with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the U.S. Treasury Department. The information is not then public, but can be shared with law enforcement, including tax authorities.

The change in law has been in the works for some 20 years, conceived initially in the years after 9-11 to combat the financing of terrorism. The ABA Business Law Section has a deeper dive for subscribers.

Critically, the transparency around beneficial corporate ownership brings the United States into compliance with transnational norms. We had become something of a money-laundering haven in the world because of the secrecy we allow around ownership of corporations, namely (pun intended) anonymous shell corporations.

People who are keen to exert dark-money influence in politics, to hide assets, or to launder money, of course, tend to have a lot of it. So the law did not come about quickly or easily. But Congress was determined enough in the end to enact the law by a super-majority, overriding President Trump's veto of the NDAA.

Constitutional objections to the law are abundant, based in the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, besides the limits of congressional power under Article I, as amended. It was only the latter theory on which Judge Liles Burke ruled. He concluded that the Corporate Transparency Act strays beyond the necessary-and-proper latitude afforded Congress for any of its constitutional powers, including the Commerce Clause and the Sixteenth Amendment taxing power. It's a problem in vertical federalism; if there is to be transparency in corporate beneficial ownership, then, it must come from the states. Burke is a Trump appointee.

I'm skeptical of the winning argument. Congress's powers in business regulation are substantial, and corruption and tax evasion are almost invariably interstate endeavors. Thus, the significance of the decision: for if it is right, a great deal more of our federal regulatory and taxing machinery will be suspect.

To be fair, small businesses objected to the added burdens of FinCEN compliance amid their already hefty costs in tax compliance, and I am empathetic. We might ought do something about that. But I suspect the legislative obstacles have more to do with keeping commercial-tax preparers in business and keeping the law arcane to shield loopholes, than with flat aversion to transparency.

The other constitutional objections are not frivolous, even if they don't hold up in the end; the rights-based theories have more romantic appeal to the classical liberal. The Fifth Amendment claim is based on due process, not so strong by itself; the Fourth Amendment claim is creative: search or seizure without reasonable suspicion. The First Amendment claim gave me pause: Compelled transparency compromises anonymous speech.

It happens that just last month, I (pro se) created a nonprofit entity to operate an academic research project. To free my New York nonprofit of minimum tax obligations—even though it has and anticipates no money—I applied for a 501(c)(3) determination from the IRS—which costs, by the way, a $275 tip to Uncle Sam.

The IRS informed me that upon approval, I will have to report my nonprofit's beneficial owners to FinCEN. It's irritating; mostly, I'm put off just wondering whether there will be yet another fee.  But it did occur to me that my nonprofit will be engaged in academic expression, and it might have things to say that will upset people in power. So there is a hint of Orwellianism in having to register my state entity with the federal FinCEN and identify my "beneficial owners"—remember, not even with any money in the mix.

At the same time, this is the uneasy balance we always have struck with the nonprofit tax registrations of First Amendment-sensitive enterprises, such as churches and issue advocates. In essence, this is the Citizens United problem, which I've always thought is more layered than it gets credit for. We have not found a principled way to differentiate Nike-as-speaker from the ACLU-as-speaker without some office of government problematically intervening to make the call.

Anyway, what attracted me to this ruling from Alabama is none of the above; rather, it was page one of Judge Burke's opinion. Have a read:

The late Justice Antonin Scalia once remarked that federal judges should have a rubber stamp that says STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL. See Jennifer Senior, In Conversation: Antonin Scalia, New York Magazine, Oct. 4, 2013. The Constitution, in other words, does not allow judges to strike down a law merely because it is burdensome, foolish, or offensive. Yet the inverse is also true—the wisdom of a policy is no guarantee of its constitutionality. Indeed, even in the pursuit of sensible and praiseworthy ends, Congress sometimes enacts smart laws that violate the Constitution. This case, which concerns the constitutionality of the Corporate Transparency Act, illustrates that principle.

If that doesn't suck you into a 53-page opinion on financial regulation, nothing will.

For the time being, as of March 4, 2024, FinCEN has suspended reporting obligations for plaintiffs in the action only, including members of the National Small Business Association.

The case is National Small Business United v. Yellen (N.D. Ala. Mar. 1, 2024). The plaintiff is a 501(c)(6) nonprofit, I'm guessing a business league, though it sounds like a not-too-exciting football league.

To combat corruption, India Supreme Court strikes down dark money system, cites U.S. precedents

Late last week, the Supreme Court of India struck a blow for transparency and accountability when it ruled unconstitutional a system of anonymous political donation.

In a 2017 law, India had adopted a system of "electoral bonds." These are not investment bonds. Rather, to make a political donation, a donor was required to buy a political bond from the State Bank of India, and the bank then gave the money to the indicated political candidate.

The bond system was adopted ostensibly to further transparency and accountability. By requiring all political donations to be processed by the state bank, regulators could ensure compliance with donor restrictions. The system was supposed, then, to balance donor anonymity—a legitimate extension of free speech rights—with anti-corruption regulation.

P.M. Narendra Modi speaks to Pres. Biden at the G20, 2022.

White House photo via Flickr

But as Darian Woods reported for The Indicator, the party in power of Prime Minister Narendra Modi received 90% of donations. It seems less likely that imbalance represented overwhelming enthusiasm for the Modi administration and much more likely that corporate donors sought favor with the administration and feared retaliation otherwise, despite their seeming anonymity. For while they were anonymous to the public, their identities were known to the state bank. And the state bank is under the control of the administration.

The India Supreme Court ruled that the electoral bond system is incompatible with the fundamental "right to know" (RTK), that is, with Indian norms of freedom of information (FOI). I wrote in 2017 about India's Right to Information Act (RTIA), a statutory instrument akin to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOI, or access to information (ATI), for India, though, is in sync with contemporary norms elsewhere in the world, notably Europe, where RTK or FOI is recognized as a human right. Courts such as the India Supreme Court, like the Court of Justice of the EU, therefore have the constitutional enforcement power of judicial review.

The India Supreme Court, as it often does on important constitutional questions, surveyed other common law nations. And despite our weak and non-textual recognition of FOI as a constitutional right, the United States earned several mentions. Saliently, the court cited the old stalwart, Buckley v Valeo (U.S. 1976), for "concern of quid pro quo arrangements and [the] dangers to a fair and effective government. Improper influence erodes and harms the confidence in the system of representative government." Disclosure, the India court reasoned,

helps and aides the voter in evaluating those contesting elections. It allows the voter to identify interests which candidates are most likely to be responsive to, thereby facilitating prediction of future performance in office. Secondly, it checks actual corruption and helps avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity. Relying upon Grosjean v. American Press Co. (U.S. 1936), [disclosure] holds that informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment. Thirdly, record keeping, reporting and disclosure are essential means of gathering data necessary to detect violations of contribution limitations.

For a more recent vintage, the India court cited Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (U.S. 2000): 

[T]he Supreme Court of the United States observes that large contributions given to secure a political quid pro quo undermines the system of representative democracy. It stems public awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large contributions. This effects the integrity of the electoral process not only in the form of corruption or quid pro quo arrangements, but also extending to the broader threat of the beneficiary being too compliant with the wishes of large contributors.

So the India court fairly observed that the U.S. Supreme Court has been willing to unmask donors, even if the Supreme Court has lately been less than enthusiastic about regulations it once, in a Buckley world, approved. Indeed, even as the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the disparate treatment of corporations in Citizens United v. FEC (U.S. 2010), it approved of disclosure requirements. 

The India court found support for disclosure in defense against corruption in other national regimes, too, for example, in Canada and Australia. Alas, there, comparisons with the United States deteriorate in practice. The India Supreme Court did not mention the dark (money) side to America's affair with transparency. Read more at the Brennan Center for Justice.

The case is Association for Democratic Reforms v. India (India Feb. 15, 2024).

Police reform shines light on disciplinary records

CC0 Pixabay via picryl

A favorable reform to follow the police protest movement of recent years, stemming in particular from the killing of George Floyd, has been transparency around police disciplinary dispositions.

There is room for disagreement over what police reform should look like. I'm of the opinion that it costs society more to have police managing economic and social problems, such as homelessness and mental health, than it would cost to tackle those problems directly with appropriately trained personnel. I wouldn't "defund" police per se, but I would allocate public resources in efficient proportion to the problems they're supposed to remedy. We might not need as much prison infrastructure if we spent smarter on education, job training, and recreation.

Regardless of where one comes down on such questions, there is no down-side to transparency around police discipline. Police unions have cried privacy, a legitimate interest, especially in the early stages of allegation and investigation. But when official disciplinary action results, privacy should yield to accountability. 

Freedom-of-information (FOI) law is well experienced at balancing personnel-record access with personal-privacy exemption. Multistate FOI norms establish the flexible principle that a public official's power and authority presses down on the access side. Because police have state power to deprive persons of liberty and even life, privacy must yield to access more readily than it might for other public employees.

In September 2023, Stateline, citing the National Conference on State Legislatures, reported that "[b]etween May 2020 and April 2023, lawmakers in nearly every state and [D.C.] introduced almost 500 bills addressing police investigations and discipline, including providing access to disciplinary records." Sixty-five enacted bills then included transparency measures in California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York.

The Massachusetts effort has come to fruition in online publication of a remarkable data set. Legislation in 2020 created the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission. On the POST Commission website, one can download a database of 4,570 law enforcement disciplinary dispositions going back 30 years. There is a form to request correction of errors. The database, at the time of this writing last updated December 22, 2023, can be downloaded in a table by officer last name or by law enforcement agency, or in a CSV file of raw data.

The data are compelling. There are plenty of minor matters that can be taken at face value. For example, one Springfield police officer was ordered to "Retraining" for "Improper firearm usage or storage." I don't see that as impugning the officer, rather as an appropriately modest corrective and a positive for Springfield police. Many dispositions similarly suggest a minor matter and proportional response, for example, "Written Warning or Letter of Counseling" for "conduct unbecoming"/"Neglect of Duty."

Then there are serious matters. The data indicate termination of a police officer after multiple incidents in 2021, including "DRINKING ON DUTY, PRESCRIPTION PILL ABUSE, AND MARIJUANA USE," as well as "POSING IN A HITLER SALUTE." Again, it's a credit to the police department involved that the officer is no longer employed there. Imagine if such disciplinary matters were secreted in the interest of personal privacy, and there were not a terminal disposition.

The future of the POST Commission is to be determined. It's being buffeted by forces in both directions. Apropos of my observation above, transparency is not a cure-all and does not remedy the problem of police being charged with responsibility for social issues beyond the purview of criminal justice.

Lisa Thurau of the Cambridge-based Strategies for Youth told GBH in May 2023 that clarity is still needed around the role and authority of police in interacting with students in schools. Correspondingly, she worried whether the POST Commission, whose membership includes a chaplain and a social worker, is adequately funded to fulfill its broad mandate, which includes police training on deescalation.

Pushing the other way, the POST Commission was sued in 2022, GBH reported, by police unions and associations that alleged, ironically, secret rule-making in violation of state open meetings law. Certainly I agree that the commission should model compliance in rule-making. But I suspect that the union strategy is simply obstruction: strain commission resources and impede accountability however possible. Curious that the political left supports both police unions and police protestors.

WNYC has online a superb 50-state survey of police-disciplinary-record access law, classifying the states as "confidential," "limited," or "public." Massachusetts is among 15 states in the "limited" category. My home state of Rhode Island and my bar jurisdictions of Maryland and D.C. are among the 24 jurisdictions in the "confidential" category.

"Sunshine State" Florida is among 12 states in the "public" category. In a lawsuit by the Tallahassee Police Benevolent Association, the Florida Supreme Court ruled unanimously in November 2023 that Marsy's Law, a privacy law enacted to protect crime victims, does not shield the identity of police officers in misconduct matters. (E.g., Tallahassee Democrat.)

£5.41m reg fine over energy traders' WhatsApps cautions attorneys also on retention, spoliation, FOI

Electrical pylons on the Leeds-Liverpool Canal, England.
Mr T via Geograph CC BY-SA 2.0

The British gas and electric regulatory authority (Ofgem) fined investment bank Morgan Stanley £5.41m in late August for failure to record and retain traders' messages on WhatsApp.

News of the fine has shaken up the British compliance sector. The case should grab the attention of compliance attorneys, of course, but also corporate counsel and government attorneys throughout the Anglo-American legal system.

Wholesale energy traders discussed market transactions on WhatsApp on their personal devices. Rules on market manipulation and insider trading require that communications "relevant" to trading be documented and retained for Ofgem review; the messages were not.

The enforcement action therefore represents a wake-up call, but not a new standard. The case probably resonated for two reasons. First, employee use of personal devices for communication is increasingly common, if not expected, and it's difficult to police. Second, WhatsApp is known for its end-to-end encryption, a feature that makes it appealing to users, but incompatible with regulatory transparency.

I'm not a fin reg wonk, but it was those characteristics of the case that caught my attention. The enforcement action should remind corporate counsel that record retention requirements cut across devices and applications and can even follow employees home. Moreover, when records might be perceived reasonably to have potential relevance in future litigation, the cost of non-retention in spoliation can be steep.

Similarly, the enforcement action should remind government authorities that neither non-public location nor software-driven encryption countermands record retention and freedom-of-information laws. Transparency law was once vexed by problems such as proprietary access and private location; it is no longer. Just ask Hillary Clinton about her State Department emails or Donald Trump about his bathtub war plans.

The enforcement action is Ofgem, Penalty Notice: Finding That Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC Has Breached Regulation 8 of the Electricity and Gas (Market Integrity and Transparency) (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2013 (the REMIT Enforcement Regulations) (Aug. 23, 2023).

Ark. Gov swings again at state FOIA

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders has proposed a bill to undercut the highly regarded transparency regime of that state's Freedom of Information Act.

I was at the Arkansas Capitol when a veritable mob of citizen opposition stopped an anti-transparency reform bill in the spring. Try, try again must be the Governor's m.o.

My friend and colleague Professor Robert Steinbuch testified effectively against the spring reform bill. Here he is telling Conduit News Arkansas why the newest incarnation is no good either.

UPDATE, Sept. 16. My understanding is that the bill was gutted this week. A substantially narrowed enacted version applies only to secret information about the governor's security detail. The matter was discussed on Arkansas Week.

DA cannot shield officer, EMT identities from state FOIA disclosure, court rules in fatal police shooting

A Massachusetts Superior Court in March ordered the district attorney to release investigative records to the family of a man killed by police.

The privacy of public officials in the technology era has strained conventional accountability rationales for transparency. Since the advent of access to public information as a democratic norm, public officials and public figures have decried purported invasions of their privacy. The very notion of privacy in modern tort law, for better and worse, traces its roots to precisely such whinging in the late nineteenth century. Access usually prevailed.

Yet in the technological era, privacy complaints have gained new currency, and some of it is legitimate. Even, or perhaps especially, in the intensely emotional context of high-profile police shootings, interests are amped up on both sides. Of course, victims and families demand understanding and accountability, and they are entitled to it. At the same time, it's harder than ever to be a police officer, and passions that expose public servants and their families to harassment and threats pose a genuine policy problem. 

The two sides collided in Massachusetts over the death of Anthony (Antone) Harden in Fall River in 2021. The 30-year-old was shot twice and killed by police in his bedroom. Police investigators concluded that Harden had used a steak knife to attempt to stab the shooter's partner in the neck and head. A district attorney (DA) investigation in 2022 ruled the homicide justified.

Surveillance video shows officer arriving at Harden's apartment.

With the final report, Bristol County DA Thomas M. Quinn III released hundreds of pages of records, including video, audio, and photographs. But there was much that the DA did not release in response to a freedom-of-information request by Harden's brother, Eric Mack, an attorney. Though the family knew, and the lawsuit revealed publicly, the names of the involved officers by the time of the DA's report, the DA would not disclose their names.

The DA also withheld other records identifying responding personnel, including video interviews with emergency medical technicians. WBUR reported that the EMTs said they did not see the steak knife that police said necessitated lethal force.

Mack sued the DA under the state public records law, and the Superior Court in March granted his request for records on all counts. With regard to the identities of police and EMTs involved, the court wrote:

Upon balancing the rights of the parties, the public's need to access against the privacy rights at issues here, I find that the equities favor disclosure. The public officials here are not acting in the capacity of private citizens but in the course of their duties. Plaintiff has a right to have a full understanding of the facts leading to his brother's death including the identities of the public officials involved to ensure accountability and transparency. The failure to disclose this information would raise questions amongst the public about why this information was being withheld, which would only serve to undermine the integrity of the law enforcement departments involved and those reviewing their conduct. Any right to privacy that a public official might have under these circumstances, which is de minimis under the circumstances presented here, is overwhelmed by the public's right to know.

Before the resolution of the public records case, in January, the Harden family threatened Fall River with a $50m lawsuit for Harden's death, if the records were not released.

The case is Mack v. Office of the District Attorney, No. 2284-CV-00248 (Mass. Super. Ct. Suffolk County Mar. 6, 2023), decided by Justice James Budreau.

Public records make $363m toxic-tort verdict possible

Condensed ethylene oxide, a carcinogen.

102% Yield via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0

Public records made possible a $363m verdict in a toxic tort case in September.

For the ABA Journal, attorneys Jennifer M. Cascio, Lance D. Northcutt, and Patrick A. Salvi II wrote about how they won the verdict in an Illinois jury trial (limited free access). They explained:

In August 2018, a federal report revealed that a small community southwest of Chicago had an elevated cancer risk due to emissions of a carcinogen from two innocuous buildings situated between a Target and a Denny’s. Those buildings were operated by the medical device sterilization company Sterigenics, which had been releasing a colorless, odorless human carcinogen [ethylene oxide] since 1985 without any warning to the surrounding community that included homes, schools, businesses and parks—all within a mile.

Bringing such a case is easier said than done; I know because I saw it in Erin Brockovich and A Civil Action. Seriously, though, even at the pleading stage, showing evidence of proximate causation between a toxic substance and specific plaintiffs' illnesses is a towering hurdle, much less the proof that would be needed to win a trial. And a plaintiff that cannot get over the pleading hurdle cannot get discovery.

It's noteworthy, then, that, as described, this case started with a public federal report and proceeded thanks in part to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Especially burdened by a dearth of relevant epidemiological evidence, the plaintiff lawyers wrote that they amassed the necessary evidence of causation by "gather[ing] documents via Freedom of Information Act requests and digging through state and federal databases."

We like to think that our not insubstantial regulatory state is using the resources that it itself produces to safeguard public health. For whatever reason, and there are many reasons, that's the exception to the rule. America rather relies heavily on the tort system as a first-line accountability mechanism. FOIA is vital to bridge the gap between public and private enforcement. 

The case moreover shows the importance of affirmative disclosures of scientific information through publicly available databases. Here, fortunately for affected persons, plaintiff lawyers were on the hunt for evidence. No doubt, though, some victims did not know they were victims of pollution, a colorless, odorless gas, no less, until they saw an attorney's ad. FOIA without affirmative disclosure is useless when people don't know there's a reason to be asking questions. Cancer sufferers might have other things on their minds.

The case, one of more than 700 of its kind against the same defendant, is Kamuda v. Sterigenics, U.S. LLC, No. 2018-L-010475 (Ill. Cir. Ct. verdict Sept. 19, 2022).

Opioid settlement disbursements must be transparent, state high court rules in row over nonprofit foundation

The nonprofit foundation responsible for disbursing hundreds of millions of dollars of opioid settlement money in Ohio is subject to state freedom of information laws, the state supreme court ruled Thursday.

Big money is flowing out of opioid settlements, such as the $10 billion deal struck by pharmacies CVS and Walgreens. Ohio will see some $450 million of that money, Emily Field reported for Law360 (limited free access). At least half of it will be disbursed by a nonprofit organization that state and local governments created for the purpose, the OneOhio Recovery Foundation.

A representative of Harm Reduction Ohio (HRO), another nonprofit organization, concerned with preventing overdose deaths, was shown the door at a OneOhio meeting not open to the public. OneOhio subsequently refused to reply to record requests under the Ohio public records act (PRA).

That will change now, as the Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously that OneOhio is the functional equivalent of a public entity, the test for bringing quasi-private actors within the scope of the PRA. To determine functional equivalence, the court explained, a totality-of-the-circumstances, multi-factor test asks:

(1) whether the entity performs a governmental function,
(2) the level of government funding, 
(3) the extent of government involvement or regulation, and 
(4) whether the entity was created by the government or to avoid the requirements of the Public Records Act.

The burden of proof is "clear and convincing," which is no low hurdle. 

The factors are common in functional equivalence tests in state sunshine laws in the United States. The devil is in the application. Characteristically, HRO and OneOhio posited very different analyses.

Though the multi-factor test makes no one factor dispositive, funding often proves controlling in cases such as these, even to the point that some states employ a disjunctive formulation along the lines of "state funding or state power." Here, the parties looked at the problem from differing angles. HRO characterized the money under the control of OneOhio, an entity created by government, as public money. OneOhio rather looked to the source of the money, private corporations, and to the ultimate beneficiaries, private-person recipients of state aid.

HRO had it right, the court decided. The analysis was bolstered by the inescapable conclusion that OneOhio was created by state and local governments through a memorandum of understanding specifically about how they would handle the money. OneOhio tried to resist the fourth factor by articulating it as conjunctive, thus, requiring an intent to evade the PRA. But the court had none of it.

Another somewhat superfluous argument by OneOhio merits mention. The foundation argued that subjecting it to the PRA would makes its funds vulnerable to raiding for other purposes by the legislature. Neither here nor there, the court opined. I suggest moreover that OneOhio's PRA accessibility is the result not the cause of its public status.

What's interesting about the argument from a tort perspective, though, is that OneOhio pointed to the example of tobacco settlement money. The Ohio executive and legislature responded to the 2008 financial crisis by diverting $230m in proceeds from the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement with Big Tobacco to unrelated purposes, namely, balancing the budget and fostering job creation. The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the diversion against constitutional challenges in 2010.

The application in the states of functional equivalence and similar tests to extend sunshine laws to quasi-private actors is highly variable, as much a function of the eye, or prejudices, of the beholder, as of any mathematical formula. That makes it difficult to extrapolate from the Ohio case beyond Ohio.

Still, I find this case offering a compelling analysis to access the infamously secret records of university foundations in other states. Those records, too, often are secreted upon the rationale that the funds originate with private donors. Consistently with the instant case, but not representing a majority rule in the states, the Ohio Supreme Court sided with a newspaper in 1992 in granting PRA access to the donor rolls of the nonprofit University of Toledo Foundation.

The instant case is State ex rel. Harm Reduction Ohio v. OneOhio Recovery Foundation, No. 2023-Ohio-1547 (May 11, 2023).