law-PIA-open-records-act-litigation
PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT (OPEN RECORDS ACT) CASE LAW
The TPIA entitles persons to obtain complete information about the affairs of government and the official
acts of public officials and employees unless otherwise expressly provided by law. See TEX. GOV’T
CODE ANN. § 552.001(a) (West 2004). The TPIA is to be construed liberally in favor of granting requests
to implement its underlying policy. See id. § 552.001(a), (b). The TPIA provides that:
A requestor or the attorney general may file suit for a writ of mandamus compelling a governmental body
to make information available for public inspection if the governmental body refuses to request an
attorney general’s decision as provided by Subchapter G or refuses to supply public information or
information that the attorney general has determined is public information that is not excepted from
disclosure under Subchapter C.
Id. § 552.321(a) (West 2004). A “requestor” is defined as “a person who submits a request to a
governmental body for inspection or copies of public information.” Id. § 552.003(6) (West 2004).
TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Jackson v. State Office of Administrative Hearings,
No. 10-0002 (Tex. Jul. 1, 2011)(Opinion by Justice Phil Johnson)(open records act request under PIA)
In order to withhold public information requested pursuant to the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) a
governmental entity must demonstrate that the requested information is not within the scope of the TPIA
or that it falls within one of TPIA’s specific exceptions to the disclosures requested. See Tex. Gov’t Code
§§ 552.101-.148; City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 355-56 (Tex. 2000). In this
case, the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) refused to disclose certain decisions and orders
in license suspension cases related to delinquent child support. The trial court and court of appeals
agreed with SOAH that the information is expressly excepted from disclosure by the Texas Government
Code provisions.
We hold that the decisions and orders must be disclosed after redaction of information expressly
excepted from disclosure and not already in a public record or otherwise in the public domain. We
reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
Conclusion. The decisions and orders Jackson requested must be disclosed. See Tex. Gov’t Code §
552.002. The Legislature has clearly expressed its intent that exceptions to disclosure be construed
narrowly. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.001; In re Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d at 340 (“‘When the Legislature
has intended to make information confidential, it has not hesitated to so provide in express terms.’”
(quoting Birnbaum v. Alliance of Am. Insurers, 994 S.W.2d 766, 776 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet.
denied)); see also Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d 535, 540 (Tex. 1981) (“[E]very word of
a statute must be presumed to have been used for a purpose. Likewise, we believe every word excluded
from a statute must also be presumed to have been excluded for a purpose.”) (citations omitted). We
decline to read the language of the statute broader than it is written and we conclude that the purpose
and intent of the TPIA can be fulfilled by disclosing the requested documents with redactions. See City of
Fort Worth v. Cornyn, 86 S.W.3d 320, 326 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.) (“To find otherwise would
also be inconsistent with the Legislature’s directive to liberally construe the Act in favor of disclosure.”).
We therefore hold that SOAH must disclose the requested decisions and orders after redaction of any
information obtained during provision of Chapter 231 services, such as information concerning a
custodial parent, noncustodial parent, child, and an alleged or presumed father, that was not already in
the public domain.
CASE DETAILS: SAMUEL T. JACKSON v. STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND SHELIA
BAILEY TAYLOR IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, STATE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-07-00293-CV, ___ SW3d
___, 07-30-09)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Phil Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
Here is the link to
e-briefs in case no. 10-0002 JACKSON v. STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
TxDPS v. Cox Texas Newspapers, LP.,
No. 09-0530 (Tex. Jul. 1, 2011)(Opinion by Justice Dale Wainwright) (access to records, right to privacy)
Our common law protects from public disclosure highly intimate or embarrassing facts. We must decide
whether it also protects information that substantially threatens physical harm. We conclude that it does.
Both sides raise important questions, not just about safety but also about the public’s right to know how
the government spends taxpayer money. Those issues could not have been fully litigated under the
standard that prevailed before today's decision. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment
and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Conclusion: We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 60.2 (d).
CASE DETAILS: TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. COX TEXAS NEWSPAPERS, L.P., AND
HEARST NEWSPAPERS, L.L.C.; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-08-00516-CV, 287 SW3d 390, 05-
29-09)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Nathan L. Hecht,
Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Eva M. Guzman, and Justice Debra Lehrmann joined. [pdf]
Justice Dale Wainwright delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Phil Johnson joined. [pdf]
(Justice David Medina and Justice Don R. Willett not sitting)
Here is the link to
e-briefs in case no. 09-0530 TEX. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. COX TEXAS NEWSPAPERS, L.P.
[including one amicus brief by Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas
City of Dallas v. Abbott, AG, No. 07-0931 (Tex. Feb. 19, 2010)(Majority opinion by O'Neill)(Public
Information Act (PIA)) (exceptions from mandatory disclosure)
CITY OF DALLAS v. GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS; from Travis County;
7th district (07-06-00161-CV, 279 SW3d 806, 08-13-07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Guzman joined.
Justice Dale Wainwright delivered a dissenting opinion in City of Dallas v. Abbott,
in which Justice Johnson joined.
(Justice Willett not sitting)
OTHER CASES INVOLVING OPEN RECORDS ISSUES
09-0423
GLORIA CELESTE LOVING v. CITY OF HOUSTON; from Harris County;
14th district (14-07-00621-CV, 282 SW3d 555, 01-08-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(Public Information Act
(PIA), open records act)
Appellant Gloria Celeste Loving filed a suit for writ of mandamus against appellee City of Houston to
compel disclosure of requested information under the Texas Public Information Act. Appellee filed a
special excepti n, stating that a mandamus action was not proper under the Texas Government Code
when the attorney general had issued a letter ruling excepting the information from disclosure. The trial
court granted the special exception, but appellant did not amend her pleading on this issue. Appellee
moved for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) the pleading is deficient; and (2) the information is
confidential. Finding appellee met its summary-judgment burden on the second ground, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
Also see:
Texas Causes of Action and Defenses | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams | Texas
Caselaw Topics Pages | Texas Opinions Homepage |