Iowa Supreme Court rejects Gov. Kim Reynolds’ move to dismiss public records suit

The Iowa Supreme Court docket on Friday refused to dismiss a lawsuit in opposition to Gov. Kim Reynolds that seeks to require her workplace to reply to public document requests.

The court docket in a unanimous choice rejected Reynolds’ argument that her workplace wasn’t obligated to reply in a well timed matter to document requests and that she might keep away from the state’s open data regulation by merely ignoring the requests. The Supreme Court docket ordered that the case be returned to the district court docket the place it will be selected its deserves.

“The governor’s workplace wished a rule that it and its companies can ignore public data requests with none penalties,” stated Thomas Story, an legal professional for the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, which represented three media organizations. “As a substitute, the Iowa Supreme Court docket has dominated that no person is above the regulation.”

In an announcement, Reynolds blamed any delays on a busy employees as a result of COVID-19 pandemic and stated her workplace now’s responding to data requests.

“Whereas we disagree that this lawsuit ought to proceed, my workplace has eradicated the backlog of open data requests and is dedicated to upholding our duty to reply to any new requests in a well timed method,” Reynolds stated in an announcement.

The case stems from a 2021 lawsuit filed by the three media organizations and their reporters who claimed the governor had violated Iowa’s open data regulation by ignoring requests for presidency data. The reporters had emailed the governor’s workplace with eight completely different open-record requests between April 2020 and April 2021 and renewed every request a minimum of as soon as however didn’t obtain any response till submitting a lawsuit in December 2021.

The media group are the liberal-leaning Bleeding Heartland weblog, Iowa Capital Dispatch and Iowa Freedom of Data Council, a nonprofit that focuses on open authorities points.

After the lawsuit, the governor’s workplace launched the data inside 18 days, though some had been closely redacted.

State legal professionals requested a district court docket choose to dismiss the case, noting the governor’s workplace had finally responded to the requests and launched public data. After the choose denied the request, the governor appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court docket.

In looking for to dismiss the lawsuit, state legal professionals argued the criticism was moot as a result of the governor’s workplace had launched the redacted data. The media group argued the governor’s workplace’s lack of any response to document requests till after a lawsuit was filed represented a violation of the open data regulation, however state legal professionals claimed the governor wasn’t obligated to reply inside a specified time interval and that it will be inappropriate for the Supreme Court docket to situation necessities for the Govt Department.

The state additionally argued that by not responding to open data requests, the governor’s workplace wasn’t truly refusing to reply to these requests.

In rejecting that argument, the court docket’s choice included a number of dictionary definitions of the phrase, “refuse.”

“We conclude {that a} defendant might “refuse” both by (1) stating that it gained’t produce data, or (2) exhibiting that it gained’t produce data,” the choice stated. “And we consider that this second sort of refusal — an implied or “silent” refusal — may be proven by an unreasonable delay in producing data.”

Though the media group’s case nonetheless should attempt their case in district court docket, Story stated the Iowa Supreme Court docket’s ruling set an necessary precedent for open data rules.

“They not solely reaffirmed prior precedent however the court docket offered further steering shifting ahead as to how state companies should adjust to these document requests and that steering could be very favorable to creating open data requests and advances the reason for transparency in authorities,” Story stated.