Appeals Court Says Government Email Stored On Private Servers Is Still Subject To FOIA Requests
from the not-really-about-Clinton,-but-pretty-much-about-Clinton dept
A recent decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals may not directly reference the Hillary Clinton email fiasco, but the conclusion reached set off irony detectors all over as it arrived the same day FBI director James Comey announced that Clinton's private email server may have been a stupid idea, but not a criminally stupid one.
There were indications that Clinton's use of a private email address was an attempt to route around FOIA requests. As her server was being set up, communications from both her staff and the State Department's noted that an account in her name existed already, but would be subject to FOIA requests.
This has been a problem elsewhere. Several government officials have conducted an inordinate amount of government business using private email accounts or personal devices in hopes of skirting public records requests. The DC Circuit Court's case deals with a little-known government agency, but an all-too-familiar dodge by public officials.
In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.
The case ruled on by the D.C. Circuit focused on a relatively obscure White House unit: the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute FOIA'ed work-related emails sent to and from the administration's science advisor, John Holdren. Holdren demurred, leading to this lawsuit that has worked its way up to the Appeals Court. The lower court decided the government was under no obligation to search private email accounts for responsive communications. The Appeals Court -- while not necessarily saying the government IS obligated to do this -- found that the lower court had been too hasty in its dismissal of CEI's complaint. From the decision [PDF]:
As relevant here, we held in Burka, that the agency must search and disclose records that were not on its premises but were under its “constructive control.”
[...]
In other words, an agency always acts through its employees and officials. If one of them possesses what would otherwise be agency records, the records do not lose their agency character just because the official who possesses them takes them out the door or because he is the head of the agency.
This seems to us to be the only resolution that makes sense. If the agency head controls what would otherwise be an agency record, then it is still an agency record and still must be searched or produced.
[...]
If a department head can deprive the citizens of their right to know what his department is up to by the simple expedient of maintaining his departmental emails on an account in another domain, that purpose is hardly served. It would make as much sense to say that the department head could deprive requestors of hard-copy documents by leaving them in a file at his daughter’s house and then claiming that they are under her control.
A solid conclusion, and one that hopefully discourages officials from playing keepaway with public documents by hosting them anywhere other than on government servers. But here's the caveat: this still may not result in any additional emails making their way into CEI's hands.
We make clear that we are not ordering the specific disclosure of any document. It may be that OSTP has valid exemption claims, or even that no document found among the jholdren@whrc.org email falls within the definition of “agency records.” However, those questions are for litigation in the district court in the first instance.
It's good to know where the DC Circuit Court of Appeals stands on the issue, seeing as nearly every federal FOIA lawsuit is handled in this jurisdiction. And if Clinton hoped to use the "private email account" excuse to withhold communications from FOIA requesters, it would appear to be a far less effective tactic than it was prior to this decision.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: foia, government, private email
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
OOps, sorry, didn't mean to give them ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So the best way to not get your private emails open to FOIA access...
That would be a good policy, that one government-related email on a private server is enough to FOIA the whole account, hence our officials would be compelled to practice vigilance to separate private and public life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cliton
need to care about them not her. she smart lady. right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You get to hide what you're doing and because it's a private machine one good kick to the side of it while it's running and you just won a "Stay out of Jail Free" card.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One thing is certain: both the Republicans and Democrats are equally corrupt, secretive, and evasive. This is the one big hope with Donald Trump -- that as president he will have the courage to prosecute the crimes of the previous administration. (Yes, the same promise that Obama made and then broke)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In other words
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We don't need no stinking badges
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One has to wonder if there was pressure applied thru the USDOJ to the FBI to make sure there "investigation" of HRC was completed before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision came down, thus the republicans and media along with Trump couldn't point to the Appeals court decision and say "a-ha"
Could this be just strange timing? Sure. Could it be avoiding Stepping on a landmine by asserting some political might with the help of the White House so as not to threaten the democrat nominee for POTUS? You'll have to decide that one yourself, but the optics sure does make an interesting point of debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Because he is well known for not lying ... lol - right?
"as president he will have the courage to prosecute the crimes of the previous administration"(s)
Yup, I'm sure he would encourage the prosecution of Bush and Cheney - not.
One thing is certain: corrupt, secretive, and evasive people are equally corrupt, secretive, and evasive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: In other words
[ link to this | view in thread ]