What if we, the people, were to ask federal administrative agencies to respond in a timely manner to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? The current denizens of the federal government tell us they will respond only if and when sued. Otherwise, we, the people, can pound salt.
That’s what happened in our challenge to the National Forest Service’s decision to padlock Plumas National Forest, Granat v. USDA. Our clients asked for background information regarding the Forest Service’s action closing thousands of roads and trails to motorized travel, making Plumas National Forest accessible only to the most able-bodied among us. The lawsuit addresses a number of important legal violations by the government, including the Forest Service’s failure to respond to FOIA requests.
As soon as we filed the Complaint, the Forest Service provided the information that it had withheld for almost five years. At the same time, the Forest Service filed a Motion to Dismiss the FOIA claims, on the ground that, because the information was provided after we sued, the FOIA claims were “moot,” and the court could not provide any relief.
Not so fast. We filed an opposition to the motion, arguing that Forest Service employees must respond to FOIA requests in a timely manner and not wait until they are sued to comply with the law. What’s the point of having a law that guarantees citizens the right to information regarding how their government operates if government employees can violate it with impunity, as long as they comply after being sued? The most charitable view is that the government is encouraging litigation. A less charitable view is that the arrogance of federal employees is eviscerating the FOIA.
Our modest proposal is this. The federal government should comply with the FOIA in a timely manner, before it is sued. The current Administration, which promised to be the most transparent, has turned out to be among the least transparent, thereby turning the FOIA on its head.
The final rule redefining “waters of the United States,” subject to federal control under the Clean Water Act, was published today in the Federal Register. According to the rule, it will become effective on August 28, 2015, and will be … Continue reading
Today’s Supreme Court decision in Michigan, et al. v. EPA (consolidated with Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA and National Mining Assoc. v. EPA) invalidated EPA’s regulation on electric power plant hazardous air pollutants for not taking its enormous costs … Continue reading
Over 350 well-connected attorneys, scholars and press gathered at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC last Thursday for the Federalist Society’s Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference, and many others watched the conference live stream. Most of the breakout and … Continue reading
We have noted earlier that the EPA and the Corps of Engineers have issued a “pre-publication” version of their final rule redefining those waters (and land features) subject to heavy-handed regulation under the Clean Water Act, known as “waters of … Continue reading
Today the world marks the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta, one of the great documents of liberty. Eight centuries ago, at Runnymede on today’s date in 1215, England’s barons forced a resentful King John to accept … Continue reading
On Tuesday, June 2, 2015, Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) and Competitive Enterprise Institute held a joint event on Capitol Hill to discuss the constitutional limits of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). With U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and U.S. Rep. … Continue reading
The high-paid leaders of the teacher’s union in Florida are at it again, opposing school choice. They brought the case known as McCall v. Scott despite the fact that parents love school choice, and despite the fact that seventy thousand … Continue reading
We have already noted here and here that the Corps and EPA have settled on a final version of their new rule drastically redefining “waters of the United States” subject to federal control throughout the Country. That rule should be … Continue reading
In a previous post, we discussed the controversial and lawless new rule issued by the Corps and EPA purporting to “clarify” waters subject to federal control under the Clean Water Act, known as “waters of the United States.” Although the … Continue reading