FOIA: From Principle on Paper to Actual Practice in Mueller Report
Congress endowed citizens with a statutory right, an enforceable right, of access to records housed within the executive branch of government. FOIA provides the public with the right to request access to records from any federal agencies.
April 18, 2019 at 12:52 PM
5 minute read
I never thought I would write the words: “I agree with Mitch McConnell.”
The U.S. Senate majority leader from Kentucky recently blocked a bipartisan resolution calling for the release of Robert Mueller's full investigative report on the Senate floor. His rationale? Timing.
“It's not unreasonable to give the special counsel and the Justice Department just a little time to complete their review in a professional and responsible manner,” McConnell had said.
Assuming that the senator is honest about this explanation, and his vote is not pretext for permanently blocking access, I agree with him.
Look, I'm just as eager as the rest of the American public to lay eyes on the culmination of Mueller's investigation—and believe that the law will enable citizens to do just that.
However, having spent six years as the executive director of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records and now handling public records cases around the country, I'm all too familiar with the legitimate time and effort sometimes required to pour over voluminous records and thoroughly review legal exemptions to disclosure. Mueller took two years to compile a report. The U.S. Department of Justice needs time to review the report to decide what portions of the report are and are not public.
This isn't just a matter of common sense or bipartisan kindness, it's a matter of federal code—which gets to the heart of my point. Like many other people, I watched the news shows on both sides of the ideological spectrum, listened to legal experts, law professors and journalists talk about the report. What I found most astonishing in this national conversation on transparency, is that no one speaks of the actual law that is the fulcrum for release of this record—the Freedom of Information Act.
In the hours of often belabored commentary about the report and the sound bites about commitment to “open and honest government” none of the talking heads on MSNBC, Fox and PBS, and the other networks—mentioned the 50-year-old law that actually mandates release of public records.
Congress endowed citizens with a statutory right, an enforceable right, of access to records housed within the executive branch of government. FOIA provides the public with the right to request access to records from any federal agencies.
The U,S. Supreme Court held that the law is designed to “ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.”
In short, the justices said, FOIA is a means for citizens to know “what their government is up to.”
What that means is that any person can file a FOIA request to obtain the Mueller report. You don't have to be a lawyer, a journalist or even have a reason for wanting to see the record. DOJ must respond to you in writing and must disclose requested information unless it falls under one of nine exemptions protecting interests such as personal privacy, national security and law enforcement, according to law. Agencies have 20 business days to respond—the legal reason I agree with McConnell regarding giving justice and Mueller time to review the record.
While the Justice Department may find certain components of the report permissibly withheld, wholesale withholding generally does not comport with the law. There's a long history of the White House objecting to release of public records, wrongly citing national security interests—think Pentagon Papers, Abu Graib photos or the 9/11 report.
Any portion of the Mueller report that is rightly withheld, the government must explain why. The public should receive a line-by-line analysis and details of the types of documents or information being withheld along with an explanation as to how the material is exempt from disclosure.
In my view, the American people are legally entitled to obtain a copy of the report, but like the investigation itself, the process of disclosing the report must fall within the parameters of the law.
We are supposed to be a country of laws. Let's follow the law on this one. Let's take FOIA from principle on paper to actual practice and let it be a “means for citizens to know what their government is up to.” As the Supreme Court said—that phrase should not be dismissed as “convenient formalism.”
Terry Mutchler is the managing partner of Mutchler Lyons, the nation's first transparency law firm devoted to helping media and corporations obtain public records in real time. She served as the founding executive director of Pennsylvania's Office of Open Records and a board member of the National Freedom of Information Coalition. She can be reached at [email protected]
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250