S.C. high court rules FOIA doesn't violate First Amendment

  • Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Jay Bender is the Reid Montgomery Professor of Journalism at the University of South Carolina and a media attorney representing the S.C. Press Association. PROVIDED

The Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled Wednesday that non-governmental entities
that are “public bodies” under the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act cannot
claim that the disclosure requirements of the FOIA violate First Amendment rights
protecting freedom of association or speech.
In August 2009 a Charleston radio personality, Rocky D [Rocky Disabato], made an FOIA request to the S.C. Association of School Administrators (SCASA) seeking access to records relating to the group’s efforts to force then Gov. Mark Sanford to accept federal school funds.
SCASA responded in the same fashion as many recipients of public money respond to FOIA requests by denying that it was a “public body” subject to the requirements of open
records and open meetings established by the FOIA. A “public body” is defined in the law as a political subdivision of the state or an entity supported in whole or part by public funds or expending public funds.
Rocky D filed suit. The Circuit Court dismissed the suit before trial on grounds that SCASA was not a public body, and, even if it were, the state law requirement that it have public meetings and disclose its records abridged its rights to associate and speak on political issues.
Writing for a three justice majority Justice Kaye Hearn framed the issue as requiring a reconciliation of “two competing principles of our democratic tradition.” Hearn wrote, “We must decide whether the FOIA as applied to the South Carolina Association of School Administrators (SCASA), a non-profit corporation engaged in political advocacy, unconstitutionally infringes upon SCASA’s First Amendment speech and association
rights.”
The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the Circuit Court. Significantly, the Supreme Court ruled that the disclosure requirements of the FOIA did not unconstitutionally abridge the First Amendment rights of SCASA.
The South Carolina Press Association together with the South Carolina Broadcasters Association submitted a brief to the court urging a reversal of the Circuit Court order.
The Supreme Court declined to rule on the question of whether SCASA was a public body and subject to the FOIA, stating that such a determination was to be based on facts established from evidence submitted to a trial court. The Supreme Court explained that merely because an entity was a non-profit corporation did not answer the question, relying on the 1991 decision in Weston v. Carolina Research & Development Foundation
where the Greenville News and the Associated Press were successful in establishing that a foundation created by the University of South Carolina and supported by funds from the school was subject to the requirements of the FOIA.
The significance of today’s decision lies in foreclosing non-governmental “public bodies” from claiming that the disclosure requirements of the FOIA abridge free speech and free association rights. In future litigation it will still be necessary to provide proof that an entity is supported by public funds or expends public funds, that is not a change, but once that threshold has been met, the public body cannot avoid disclosure by claiming
that disclosure is an abridgement of its First Amendment rights.
Since many chambers of commerce and other groups now receive significant sums of public funds from “Hospitality Tax” coffers to operate, those groups no longer may claim their activities are sheltered from public scrutiny by the First Amendment.
Rocky D may no longer be on the air in Charleston, but the case he started will be of value to South Carolinians who want to see where their tax money is being spent.

Comments

Notice about comments:

Summerville Journal Scene is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not Summerville Journal Scene.

If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.

Upcoming Events
Poll
Print Ads
Latest Videos


Summerville Journal Scene

© 2014 Summerville Journal Scene an Evening Post Industries company. All Rights Reserved.

Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Parental Consent Form.