McBurney v. Young: 19th Century Precedents Used to Downplay 21st Century FOIA Statutes

• In Event: ICA Plenary Interactive Paper/Poster Session and Reception
  In Interactive Paper Session: Communication Law and Policy Interactive Poster Session

Abstract

In 19th Century America, access to public records was problematic, often tied to a citizen having a justifiable and provable personal or financial interest in viewing a specific record. And even if citizens could see a record, there was no guarantee they could copy it. Such a crabbed, dangerous approach to access law supposedly expired with the passage of state and federal Freedom of Information Acts (FOIAs) after World War II.
This research analyzes a spring 2013 decision by a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States in McBurney v. Young. Language in that decision written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. showed his disdain for the concept of the people’s right to know through a discursive opinion relying on 19th Century horse-and-buggy era decisions. Justice Alito’s opinion may be taken as a poster-child for purposeful and slanted use of history and obsolete legal precedents.

Authors

• Michael Thomas Martinez, U of Tennessee - Knoxville

• Dwight L. Teeter, Jr., U of Tennessee