McBurney v. Young
185 L. Ed. 2d 758, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 3317, 569 U.S. 221 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's freedom of information law that restricts access to state citizens does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause because access to all public records is not a fundamental privilege. Nor does it violate the dormant Commerce Clause, as such a law does not regulate interstate commerce but rather provides a state-created service to its own citizens.
Facts:
- Mark J. McBurney, a Rhode Island citizen, experienced a nine-month delay by Virginia's Division of Child Support Enforcement in filing a child support petition on his behalf.
- To investigate the cause of the delay, McBurney submitted a request under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for all documents related to his case and agency policies.
- The Virginia agency denied McBurney's FOIA request on the grounds that he was not a citizen of the Commonwealth.
- Roger W. Hurlbert, a California citizen, runs a business that obtains real estate tax records for clients across the country.
- A client hired Hurlbert to obtain real estate tax records for properties located in Henrico County, Virginia.
- Hurlbert submitted a Virginia FOIA request for these records, but the Henrico County office denied his request because he was not a Virginia citizen.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners McBurney and Hurlbert filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- The District Court, a court of first instance, granted Virginia's motion for summary judgment.
- Petitioners, as appellants, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of Virginia.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Virginia's Freedom of Information Act, which grants access to public records only to citizens of the Commonwealth, violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV or the dormant Commerce Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
No. Virginia's Freedom of Information Act, by limiting access to citizens of the Commonwealth, does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause or the dormant Commerce Clause. The Privileges and Immunities Clause is not implicated because the statute does not abridge any 'fundamental' rights. The law does not burden the right to pursue a common calling, as its purpose is to ensure government accountability to its citizens, not economic protectionism. It does not burden the right to own and transfer property, as essential records for property transactions are available to all through other means. The law also does not deny access to the courts, as noncitizens have adequate discovery tools for litigation. Finally, a broad right to access public information under a state FOIA is not a fundamental privilege protected by the Clause, as such a right was not recognized at common law and is of recent statutory origin. Similarly, the law does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause because it does not regulate or burden interstate commerce; it creates a service for its own citizens. Virginia is the sole creator of the 'product' (its public records), and as a market participant, it may limit the benefits of this state-created program to the citizens who fund and are served by the state government.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. While joining the Court's opinion in full, Justice Thomas wrote separately to reiterate his long-held view that the dormant Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution. He believes the doctrine is unworkable and should not be used as a basis for striking down a state statute.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that state freedom of information laws are primarily a matter of the relationship between a state and its own citizenry. The Court's refusal to classify access to public records under FOIA as a 'fundamental' privilege grants states significant authority to limit such statutory access to their own residents. This holding distinguishes these laws from unconstitutional protectionist measures aimed at economic discrimination and reinforces that states can provide unique services to their citizens without violating Article IV. The decision also affirms the market participant doctrine's applicability to state-created information services, shielding them from dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny.
