McBurney v. Young
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12-17 | 4th Cir. | Feb 20, 2013 | Apr 29, 2013 | 9-0 | Alito | OT 2012 |
Holding: Virginia"s Freedom of Information Act, which grants Virginia citizens access to all public records, but grants no such right to non-Virginians, does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which protects only those privileges and immunities that are "fundamental." The Act also does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause: it neither prohibits access to an interstate market nor imposes burdensome regulation on that market; and in any event, a state does not violate the Clause when, having created a market through a state program, it "limits benefits generated by [that] state program to those who fund the state treasury and whom the State was created to serve."
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on April 29, 2013. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion recap: Only one argument needed (Lyle Denniston, April 29, 2013)
- Argument recap: Agnosticism as an argument (Lyle Denniston, February 20, 2013)
- Argument preview: How open are public records? (Lyle Denniston, February 18, 2013)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 04/20/2012 | Application (11A1012) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012, submitted to The Chief Justice. |
| 04/25/2012 | Application (11A1012) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until June 29, 2012. |
| 06/29/2012 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 6, 2012) |
| 07/09/2012 | Waiver of right of respondents Nathaniel L. Young, Deputy Commissioner and Director, Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, et al. to respond filed. |
| 07/18/2012 | Waiver of right of respondent Thomas C. Little to respond filed. |
| 07/25/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012. |
| 07/30/2012 | Response Requested . (Due August 29, 2012) |
| 08/28/2012 | Brief amici curiae of American Society of News Editors, et al. filed. |
| 08/29/2012 | Brief amici curiae of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), et al. filed. |
| 08/29/2012 | Brief of respondents Nathaniel L. Young, Deputy Commissioner and Director, Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, et al. in opposition filed. |
| 08/29/2012 | Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc., et al. filed. |
| 08/29/2012 | Brief amici curiae of Coalition for Sensible Public Records Access, et al. filed. |
| 09/12/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 5, 2012. |
| 09/12/2012 | Reply of petitioners Mark J. McBurney, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/05/2012 | Petition GRANTED. |
| 11/09/2012 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including December 14, 2012. |
| 12/04/2012 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Mark J. McBurney, et al. |
| 12/07/2012 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is further extended to and including December 21, 2012. |
| 12/10/2012 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED. |
| 12/16/2012 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners |
| 12/18/2012 | SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, February 20, 2013 |
| 12/18/2012 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is further extended to and including December 26, 2012. |
| 12/26/2012 | Brief of petitioners Mark J. McBurney, et al. filed. |
| 01/02/2013 | Brief amici curiae of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 53 Media Organizations, et al. filed. |
| 01/02/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc., and Allied Educational Foundation filed. |
| 01/02/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Coalition for Sensible Public Records Access, et al. filed. |
| 01/02/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. |
| 01/02/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Public Justice, P.C. filed. |
| 01/02/2013 | Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/04/2013 | Record received from the U.S.C.A. for the 4th Circuit. 1 Box |
| 01/04/2013 | Record from U.S.D.C. for Eastern District of Virginia is electronic. |
| 01/10/2013 | CIRCULATED. |
| 01/24/2013 | Brief of respondents Nathaniel L. Young, Deputy Commissioner and Director, Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/30/2013 | Brief amici curiae of National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/30/2013 | Proposal from counsel for amici curiae National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. to lodge copies of three letters from local governmental entities referenced in their brief. |
| 01/31/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Local Government Attorneys of Virginia, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 02/04/2013 | Letter from counsel for petitioners opposing lodging proposed by National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. |
| 02/08/2013 | Reply from counsel for amici National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. to petitioner's opposition to lodging proposal. |
| 02/11/2013 | Respondents' letter in support of lodging proposal. |
| 02/13/2013 | Reply of petitioners Mark J. McBurney, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 02/20/2013 | Argued. For petitioners: Deepak Gupta, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., Solicitor General of Virginia, Richmond, Va. |
| 04/29/2013 | Adjudged to be AFFIRMED Alito, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. |
| 05/31/2013 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
| 06/03/2013 | Record returned to U.S.C.A. for 4th Circuit. |
Holding: Virginia”s Freedom of Information Act, which grants Virginia citizens access to all public records, but grants no such right to non-Virginians, does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which protects only those privileges and immunities that are “fundamental.” The Act also does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause: it neither prohibits access to an interstate market nor imposes burdensome regulation on that market; and in any event, a state does not violate the Clause when, having created a market through a state program, it “limits benefits generated by [that] state program to those who fund the state treasury and whom the State was created to serve.”
Judgment:”Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on April 29, 2013. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.