The Supreme Court, in two decisions released Wednesday, tightened a 21-year-old definition of what constitutes information of a personal nature that has guided courts when presented with FOIA disputes.

1. Any exemptions to the disclosure of public documents under FOIA are unaffected by the passage of time or changed circumstances, a unanimous court ruled in one case challenging Michigan State University's refusal to release records relating to criminal assaults in a dormitory. Justice Robert Young Jr., writing for the court (State News v. Michigan State University, SC docket No. 133682), said the proper time for a public body to evaluate a FOIA request is at the time of the filing. In this instance, the university cited the law enforcement exemption and privacy exemption in denying the State News request.
2. In the other (Michigan Federation of Teachers v. UM, SC docket No. 133819), a 4-3 majority said the law does not compel the University of Michigan to release to a faculty union the names, home addresses and telephone numbers of employees who did not consent to having that information listed in the university's telephone directory. Mr. Young, writing for the court, said the Court of Appeals erred in focusing on whether the information was of an intimate or embarrassing nature regarding the workers' private lives. In denying the FOIA request filed by the Detroit Federation of Teachers, he said the law's exemption encompasses not only potentially embarrassing information, but also that which is confidential and private.
   The court said the 1997 Supreme Court ruling on which the appellate court relied unnecessarily limited the scope of the phrase "of a personal nature" when it referenced intimate or embarrassing details.

Both decisions reversed panels of the Court of Appeals which had ruled passage of time could affect the determination of whether to release records, and that the employee information did not disclose anything of an intimate or embarrassing nature.

Source: Gongwer News Service, 7.16.08