The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a sharp slap in the face to some particularly persistent reporters at a small newspaper in South Dakota. And the sting will be felt by information advocates coast to coast.
The court ruled 6 to 3 that the government does not have to turn over to the newspaper the food stamp data it sought from grocery stores.
The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls has been reporting on the $65 billion-a-year federal food assistance program, commonly known as food stamps. It asked the federal government for information on the program (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and got a fraction of what it wanted. And this odyssey began eight years ago.
In an article on the case, Argus Leader News Director Cory Myers, who directs a staff of 18, said getting the information is about “knowing how our government is operating” and “knowing what government is doing with our tax money.”
The paper asked for names and addresses of all retail stores that participate in SNAP as well as each store’s annual redemption data. Retailers objected to the release of the information, which they deemed proprietary and confidential though the information is routinely turned over to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The Supreme Court agreed with the retailers, rendering a decision detrimental to citizens everywhere. This ruling weakens an already-anemic law, a law that can’t tolerate more watering down.
The Freedom of Information Act has existed since 1967, ostensibly allowing the public to access records from federal agencies. There are exemptions that relate to national security, law enforcement and personal privacy. And while agencies must acknowledge within 20 days receipt of a request, actually receiving the information can take years. And what they get is often incomplete — and for obscure reasons.
On the matter of time, the FOIA website notes: “Agencies typically process requests in the order of receipt. The time it takes to respond to a request will vary depending on the complexity of the request and any backlog of requests already pending at the agency.”
This is government speak for “a long time.”
For example, it took four years for the Post-Gazette’s Anya Sostek to receive information under FOIA regarding the 2012 fatal mauling of a child at the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium. Her article in 2018 revealed that, on at least six occasions, staff and volunteers at the zoo had raised concerns about the possibility of a child falling through an opening above the African painted dog exhibit. And that’s what happened on Nov. 4, 2012, when 2-year-old Maddox Derkosh was mauled to death by the dogs after his mother held him up to the opening in the observation deck and he lurched forward and fell, bouncing off a safety net and into the exhibit. When Ms. Sostek finally got results from her FOIA request, it came in the form of a 41-page report that was part of a 522-page report.
Many government agencies do not have the staff in place to respond to public records requests. And while President Barack Obama signed the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, promising there would be greater levels of transparency, there were no new resources committed for implementing improvements.
Now comes a Supreme Court ruling that further diminishes FOIA.
The loopholes must be tightened, time limits set, and funding put in place so the true intent of the law can be executed. Withholding information from the public is disenfranchising the public.
First Published: July 1, 2019, 10:00 a.m.