Graduate Student
Justice Alito’s Presumed Stance on McBurney v. Young I think the case would eventually wind up as Justice Alito, known as conservative, voting against McBurney. As far as the voting, 6-3 or 7-2 would, in my speculation, be the most likely result with majority ruling against the state government and its FOIA, prompting optimization of the law.
The case, McBurney v. Young, will be profound not only for the legal parties involved, but also for the other states with the similar provisions in their state open-records laws, including Arkansas, New Hampshire and Tennessee. In terms of handling freedom of information, which is the crux of the issue argued by the case plaintiffs, two non-Virginia residents and respondent represented by Virginia Solicitor General E.Duncan Getchell, the case is bound to be the benchmark for ensuing litigation.
There are several angles to approach this case. The Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1) is one of the decisive issue upon which the case is going to be decided as to whether the fundamental rights of the information requesters are violated. That said, the Privileges and Immunities Clause (PAI) is the law that prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. The text of the clause reads: the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
In this case, the information requesters, from other states with different needs, were denied access to the information only made available to the in-state residents. Deepak Gupta arguing for the petitioners asserted that the Virginia Freedom of Information Act substantially kept the information regarding public information from the requesters, which is an act that unconstitutionally discriminates against those out of state. From there, the case would be boiled downed to whether the petitioners’ fundamental rights that are supposed to be protected by PAI was
The case, McBurney v. Young, will be profound not only for the legal parties involved, but also for the other states with the similar provisions in their state open-records laws, including Arkansas, New Hampshire and Tennessee. In terms of handling freedom of information, which is the crux of the issue argued by the case plaintiffs, two non-Virginia residents and respondent represented by Virginia Solicitor General E.Duncan Getchell, the case is bound to be the benchmark for ensuing litigation.
There are several angles to approach this case. The Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1) is one of the decisive issue upon which the case is going to be decided as to whether the fundamental rights of the information requesters are violated. That said, the Privileges and Immunities Clause (PAI) is the law that prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. The text of the clause reads: the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
In this case, the information requesters, from other states with different needs, were denied access to the information only made available to the in-state residents. Deepak Gupta arguing for the petitioners asserted that the Virginia Freedom of Information Act substantially kept the information regarding public information from the requesters, which is an act that unconstitutionally discriminates against those out of state. From there, the case would be boiled downed to whether the petitioners’ fundamental rights that are supposed to be protected by PAI was