Sealed Mulvaney case shows rules for sealing court documents

On the surface, a legal case with an appeal currently pending before the South Carolina Court of Appeals looks like a technical business case resulting from a real estate deal. But as originally reported by the Washington Post, the case involves White House acting chief of staff John Michael (“Mick”) Mulvaney.  More...

In test of revised FOIA, judge rules against last-minute agenda additions

My January column for the South Carolina Press Association:
https://scpress.org/in-test-of-revised-foia-judge-rules-against-last-minute-agenda-additions/


A recent common pleas court decision appears to be the first application of recent changes to South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Law, and requirements for public notice of agenda items at public meetings. And since an appeal is planned, it may establish an important precedent on this issue.
Changes to South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act in 2015 added a requirement that public bodies subject to the law publicly release an agenda at least 24 hours in advance of any regularly scheduled meeting, and that any additions to the agenda similarly be announced publicly at least 24 hours before the meeting.

Tales of FOIA and Secrets, Then and Now

The Pentagon Papers case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Nixon administration’s attempt to bar publication of a detailed history of American involvement in southeast Asia prior to and during the Vietnam War, is rightly celebrated as a landmark decision in favor of government openness and accountability.

But the case also shows that tenacity and persistence is also required: by the journalists who analyzed and summarized the information in the documents, by the editors who resisted government pressure and by the owners who paid the bills for the court battle over publication. And two recent freedom of information cases—one national, one here in South Carolina—show that tenacity and persistence are still required for journalists to obtain public information and hold government accountable.

South Carolina Appeals Court Ruling Outlines Libel Law Principles

My November column for the South Carolina Press Association:

On Nov. 6, a three-judge panel of the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the former owner of the Charleston City Paper in a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper over two editorial columns about a football team’s pre-game ritual that some considered racist. While the appellate court’s decision is not too surprising, it does illuminate several well-established principles of libel law in South Carolina that should be known by writers, journalists and editors here.

Does South Carolina’s FOIA end at the border?

Common Pleas Judge Robert E. Hood’s ruling that the House Republican Caucus is not subject to South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act is a disturbing result. The caucus uses government resources without charge, and much of the state legislature’s policies are formulated in the caucus meetings. It is especially troubling because of the corruption that has been found in the legislature in recent years, since such impropriety can flourish in secrecy.

But beyond the issue of public and media access to the caucus, Judge Hood also made another, more disquieting ruling: that while South Carolina’s Freedom of Information law allows anyone to request access to state and local government records, only “citizens” of the state can sue to enforce the statute when access to records is denied.  And “citizens,” he ruled, means only people who live in South Carolina, not corporations that do business here.

Freelancing FOIA

My November column for the South Carolina Press Association:

First Amendment protects free distribution pubs too; new Horry litter ordinance could bring test

My latest column for the South Carolina Press Association:

Frustrating FOIA

My latest column for the South Carolina Press Association:

Through South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, diligent journalists and others have discovered much revealing information about the actions of state and local government in our state. Things recently revealed through FOIA requests have included Anderson County’s failure to distribute donated bleeding-control trauma kits to schools until two years after the 2016 Townville shooting; questionable spending by Fifth Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson; documents relating to the V.C. Summer nuclear plant debacle; enforcement of Myrtle Beach’s disorderly conduct offense; and a $225,000 guarantee that Coastal Carolina will pay Norfolk State for a 2019 game.

But many government officials and agencies in South Carolina resist or frustrate FOIA requests.

Washington woes, a Charleston charade and some hope

My January column for the South Carolina Press Association...
 
When I was a legal fellow at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press we had an “outrage meter” drawn on one of the whiteboards in the reception area. The “needle” on the meter would be redrawn frequently, either towards the left or right, depending on the latest developments in media law and the perceived threats to freedom of speech and the press.

During most of my tenure, the outrage needle mainly fluctuated in the middle range. But if the Reporters Committee still has such a meter, recent developments on the national level and here in South Carolina would be pushing the needle into the red danger zone, and perhaps beyond. But there are also reminders of the importance of the First Amendment, and the role of robust media in the democratic process.

Why FOI?

My November column for the South Carolina Press Association:

The holes in South Carolina’s shield law

My July column for the South Carolina Press Association:

FOIA, police cameras, and the New Frontier

My latest South Carolina Press Association column....

About 'of and concerning,' and libel under Trump

My latest column for the South Carolina Press Association: