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
The physical invasion of the raisin snatchers — a property rights victory at the Supreme Court In a week marked by several major Supreme Court decisions that were quite disappointing to advocates of limited government and the rule of law, there was one … Continue reading
Today the Court held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (our earlier blog post on the case is here). The Court came to this conclusion as a matter of statutory interpretation, but didn’t say much … 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 Texas Supreme Court held in Plains v. Torch that a contract dispute worth over 43 million dollars should be governed by the words of the contract, rather than by vague notions of abstract justice. PLF filed an amicus … 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
Lawsuit abuse — Filing without injury PLF filed this letter brief asking the California Supreme Court to review of Animal Legal Defense Fund v. LT Napa Partners—which PLF asked the Supreme Court to overturn an Unfair Competition Law (UCL) case that threatens … Continue reading