Public records for nonresidents
Mark J. McBurney v. Young
In brief
Virginia may keep its public-records law limited to Virginia citizens; the Supreme Court agreed that the limit violates neither of the constitutional protections McBurney invoked.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · April 29, 2013 · Opinion by Justice Alito
- What it’s about
- Mark McBurney, a Rhode Island resident, challenged Virginia’s rule limiting requests under its Freedom of Information Act to Virginia citizens.
- Who it affects
- Virginia can continue limiting requests under its public-records law to Virginia citizens; McBurney’s constitutional challenge did not succeed.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that the rule violated neither constitutional protections for out-of-state citizens nor protections for interstate trade, and agreed with the lower court.
Mark McBurney, a Rhode Island resident, challenged Virginia’s rule limiting requests under its public-records law to Virginia citizens.
The case asked whether constitutional protections for basic rights and interstate trade require states to give people from other states the same access to public records as their own citizens.
Question presented
Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the dormant Commerce Clause of the U. S. Constitution, may a state preclude citizens of other states from enjoying the same right of access to public records that the state affords its own citizens?
What the Court decided
Holding
Virginia’s FOIA does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which protects only those privileges and immunities that are “fundamental.” See Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm’n of Mont., 436 U. S. 371, 382, 388. Virginia’s FOIA does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. The “common thread” among this Court’s dormant Commerce Clause cases is that “the State interfered with the natural functioning of the interstate market either through prohibition or thorough burdensome regulation.” Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U. S. 794, Virginia’s FOIA, by contrast, neither prohibits access to an interstate market nor imposes burdensome regulation on that market. Accordingly, this is not properly viewed as a dormant Commerce Clause case. Even shoehorned into the Court’s dormant Commerce Clause framework, however, Hurlbert’s claim would fail. 667 F. 3d 454, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which protects certain basic rights of out-of-state citizens, did not bar Virginia’s rule. The law did not block access to or burden an interstate market, so McBurney’s challenge under the constitutional rule on interstate trade failed.
The vote
- Majority author
- Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
What's next
The Fourth Circuit’s ruling remains in place, and Virginia officials may continue applying the citizen limit to requests under the law.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - McBurney
Opinion added: McBurney
More questions
- What did Justice Thomas say separately?
- He joined the Court’s opinion but said the dormant Commerce Clause, a rule limiting state barriers to interstate trade, has no basis in the Constitution’s text and should not be used to strike down state laws.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.