{"count":4446,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yNy45MDI2MSZzPTIxNTY3NDcmdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0wOS0wOSZwPTI%3D&q=ASSOCIATION+AND+ANONYMITY+FREEDOM+OF+ASSOCIATION&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10027419/planned-parenthood-association-v-state/","attorney":"","caseName":"Planned Parenthood Association v. State","caseNameFull":"","citation":["554 P.3d 998","2024 UT 28"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":10027419,"court":"Utah Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Utah","court_id":"utah","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-08-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 20220696","docket_id":69005649,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:27:51.194591Z","date_created":"2024-08-01T13:14:02.679529Z","score":{"bm25":53.015488}},"neutralCite":"2024 UT 28","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[45,93149,96417,100233,105746,109760,166611,232383,266043,363673,397272,805485,1156217,1157365,1181976,1193758,1224438,1245982,1283849,1379245,1385648,1396908,1402744,1444848,2065681,2452945,2455559,2507726,2542811,2566966,2601765,2608549,2620617,2634494,2674672,2763968,2775233,3132504,3580402,3987858,4090824,4195403,4225588,4379616,4422611,4466597,4530484,4536295,4550285,4637719,4681784,4736615,4997247,5157817,5157910,5177855,5516270,6353492,7250744,7253303,7973360,8057935,8193743,8654154,8654242,8654873,8655087,8656700,8699740,8946110,9418870,9419259,9420983,9422525,9423065,9423453,9424787,9424810,9424861,9425157,9426170,9426552,9426626,9426848,9428315,9430887,9432245,9432577,9432680,9433415,9434710,9435422,9438103,9505847,9547459,9548781,9572398,9590387,9623609,9624998,9782260,9785943,9787018,9788784,9789033,9804554,9841280,9847795,9869226,9874618,9879580,9886933],"download_url":"http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Planned Parenthood Association v. State20240801.pdf","id":10494020,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/08/01/planned_parenthood_association_v._state.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-02T19:22:48.442914Z","date_created":"2024-08-01T13:14:02.687404Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"edba1a62791caa3bea57f1724c7468af8ea0b57a","snippet":"                 This opinion is subject to revision before final\n                      publication in the Pacific Reporter\n                                 2024 UT 28\n\n\n                                    IN THE\n\n      SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH\n\n PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF UTAH, on behalf of itself\n            and its patients, physicians, and staff,\n                           Appellee,\n                                       v.\nSTATE OF UTAH, GOVERNOR SPENCER J. COX, in his offi","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10494020],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9448112/city-of-tallahassee-florida-v-florida-police-benevolent-association-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"City of Tallahassee, Florida v. Florida Police Benevolent Association, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9448112,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-11-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC2021-0651","docket_id":68048659,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:18:58.732801Z","date_created":"2023-11-30T17:03:01.148821Z","score":{"bm25":50.45831}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[94074,94091,1093309,1690471,1704973,1765408,1798981,1816991,1839902,1902767,1926635,1932250,3174952,3385846,4310726,4324389,4352839,4869950,6347223,7712377,8880694,8912536,9422988,9424331,9433709,9434566,9485228],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pre_opinion_content_download/1172655","id":9905937,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/11/30/city_of_tallahassee_florida_v._florida_police_benevolent_association_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T07:03:07.340886Z","date_created":"2023-11-30T17:03:01.150325Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"158671b37cdeb2667ac3229f3374e8ab874c5db7","snippet":"          Supreme Court of Florida\n                              ____________\n\n                           No. SC2021-0651\n                             ____________\n\n                CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA,\n                           Petitioner,\n\n                                   vs.\n\n  FLORIDA POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,\n                     Respondents.\n\n                          November 30, 2023\n\nCOURIEL, J.\n\n     This case arises from two unrelated but contemporaneous\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9905937],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8243070/national-rifle-association-of-america-v-maria-t-vullo/","attorney":"","caseName":"National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo","caseNameFull":"","citation":["49 F.4th 700"],"citeCount":24,"cluster_id":8243070,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","court_citation_string":"2d Cir.","court_id":"ca2","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-09-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-636-cv","docket_id":65367477,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:51:00.761569Z","date_created":"2022-09-22T15:00:29.657467Z","score":{"bm25":49.07294}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[145918,418159,724876,760365,776515,796528,2675749,2809762,4181060,4183451,4212190,4512541,4555665,4681206,8407943,8410545,8410837,8412600,8412828,8413430,8989781,9422525,9428863,9430379,9431119,9434794,9435068,9435339,9435383],"download_url":"http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8da3dbb8-9b4d-4597-8d81-566c58c29d0b/1/doc/21-636_opn.pdf","id":8208333,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/09/22/national_rifle_association_of_america_v._maria_t._vullo.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T02:53:55.685627Z","date_created":"2022-09-22T15:00:29.683319Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"17c545cf6a9134f745799b6e161fa3ff2416c249","snippet":"21-636-cv\nNational Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo\n\n\n                                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n                                     FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n                                            August Term 2021\n\n              (Argued: January 13, 2022                    Decided: September 22, 2022)\n\n                                          Docket No. 21-636-cv\n\n\n\n                          NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,\n                       ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8208333],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4532647/state-of-washington-v-grocery-manufacturers-association/","attorney":"","caseName":"State Of Washington v. Grocery Manufacturers Association","caseNameFull":"","citation":["425 P.3d 927"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4532647,"court":"Court of Appeals of Washington","court_citation_string":"Wash. Ct. App.","court_id":"washctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-09-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"49768-9","docket_id":7806644,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:11:23.823162Z","date_created":"2018-09-05T17:24:33.113675Z","score":{"bm25":48.965984}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1741,105746,109380,131149,150541,1282451,1418788,2499123,2508691,2552769,2570778,2581723,2582429,2606215,2621992,2622018,2623734,2632321,2632379,4713972],"download_url":"http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2 49768-9-II Published Opinion.pdf","id":4309900,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/09/05/state_of_washington_v._grocery_manufacturers_association.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:23:24.373438Z","date_created":"2018-09-05T17:24:33.119626Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3ea18794bc81a9b5d1600de71b25e13d01fc89c4","snippet":"                                                                                              Filed\n                                                                                        Washington State\n                                                                                        Court of Appeals\n                                                                                         Division Two\n\n                                                                                       ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4309900],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4868515/lindquist-v-freedom-of-information-commission/","attorney":"","caseName":"Lindquist v. Freedom of Information Commission","caseNameFull":"","citation":["203 Conn. App. 512"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":4868515,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-03-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC42496","docket_id":59772270,"judge":"Bright; Alvord; Cradle","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:16.208683Z","date_created":"2021-03-29T12:02:47.007935Z","score":{"bm25":44.516903}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1514150,1997431,4659424,6358109,7840890,7845573,7860784,7862324,9754202],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/ap203/203AP164.pdf","id":4672294,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/03/30/lindquist_v._freedom_of_information_commission.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T09:27:36.283634Z","date_created":"2021-03-29T12:02:47.009621Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"797730d1ca19463114e56c08fbec587760048922","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Administrative appeal from the decision of the defen- dant dismissing the plaintiff's complaint regarding a records request submitted to the University of Connecti- cut Health Center, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain, where the court, Hon. George Levine, judge trial referee, granted a motion to intervene as a party defendant filed by the University of Connecticut Health Center; thereafter, the matter was tried to the court, Hon. Henry S. Cohn, judge trial referee; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Reversed; judgment directed. Richard Lindquist, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff). Paula Sobral Pearlman, commission counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Colleen M. Murphy, general counsel, for the appellee (defendant). Lynn D. Wittenbrink, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was William Tong, attorney gen- eral, for the appellee (intervening defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4672294],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Pursuant to statute (§ 1-210 (b) (1)), the Freedom of Information Act does not require the disclosure of preliminary drafts or notes provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding them outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Pursuant further to statute (§ 1-210 (e) (1)), notwithstanding § 1-210 (b) (1), disclosure is required of such documents as advisory opinions and recommendations comprising part of the process by which governmental decisions are formulated. The plaintiff, L, a tenured professor at the defendant health center, C Co., appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the final decision of the defendant Freedom of Information Commission. After the completion of his annual performance review, as required by C Co.'s bylaws, L requested certain documents and com- munications related to the review. C Co. disclosed records within which it made various redactions, including to comments and ratings made by individual committee members about L's evaluation. L appealed to the commission, which found that the redacted portions of the requested records were permissibly exempt pursuant to § 1-210 (b) (1) and (e) (1). L then appealed to the trial court, which concluded that the commission correctly determined that C Co., pursuant to § 1-210 (b) (1), properly had resolved the balance between secrecy and disclosure of the preliminary drafts or notes in good faith and that § 1-210 (e) (1) did not require production of the committee members' final comments and ratings because they were ''preliminary'' to the committee's recommendation to the dean of C Co. regarding L's evaluation, and dismissed L's appeal. On L's appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court properly concluded that the commission did not abuse its discretion in finding that the redacted records were exempt from disclosure under § 1-210 (b) (1), as those records were preliminary drafts or notes within the meaning of that statute: the redacted records at issue consisted of the individual comments and ratings of the committee members made during the deliberative process of the multistep commit- tee process during which the committee members deliberated in the form of stated impressions in order to reach a finalized collective recom- mendation for the dean, and the stated individualized impressions, in and of themselves, preceded the formal and informed collective recom- mendation of the committee; moreover, the commission did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the benefit of withholding the records at issue outweighed the public interest in disclosure, as it found that C Co. determined that public disclosure of the records would have a chilling effect on the willingness of the committee members to provide the candid assessments that were necessary to ensure an objective evaluation process. 2. The trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed L's appeal, and improperly concluded that the commission had correctly applied § 1- 210 (e) (1) to the final comments and ratings that were delivered to the dean because § 1-210 (e) (1) required the requested documents to be produced, even though disclosure would not otherwise be required under § 1-210 (b) (1); the final individual comments and ratings provided by the committee members were used in the dean's deliberative process and were part of a completed, not draft, document, and were precisely the type of documents that our Supreme Court stated in Van Norstrand v. Freedom of Information Commission (211 Conn. 339) should be produced pursuant to § 1-210 (e) (1); moreover, the record did not support the conclusion of the commission that the redacted records did not contain recommendations, as although the individual committee members' comments and ratings were initially submitted as recommen- dations for the purpose of the committee's deliberations, the final version of the comments and ratings served as recommendations for the purpose of the dean's review of the faculty member's rating, and the trial court and the commission misapplied the term ''preliminary'' as it is used in § 1-210 (e) (1). Argued September 15, 2020—officially released March 30, 2021"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2667003/national-association-of-waterfront-employers-v-cha/","attorney":"","caseName":"National Association of Waterfront Employers v. Chao","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2667003,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-10-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2007-2250","docket_id":196323,"judge":"Judge Rosemary M. Collyer","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:41:56.639337Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T07:26:53.905355Z","score":{"bm25":39.503414}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":687,"cites":[107063,109606,110062,111063,111719,111722,111735,112841,118158,184919,185567,305864,390286,392085,657159,686423,737386,758096,2261151,2305306,2489135],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2007cv2250-48","id":2667003,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2009/10/27/national_association_of_waterfront_employers_v._chao.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T21:47:43.426912Z","date_created":"2014-04-04T13:02:48.951248Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4b473a76e6c83724d02db7fa5ccd13413b81fd93","snippet":"                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n                                               )\nNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF                        )\nWATERFRONT EMPLOYERS,                          )\n                                               )\n              Plaintiff,                       )\nand                                            )\n                                               )\nOLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE                  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2667003],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6474974/reporters-committee-for-freedom-of-the-press-v-federal-bureau-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Federal Bureau of Investigation","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6474974,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-06-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2015-1392","docket_id":63361380,"judge":"Judge Richard J. Leon","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:48:54.866634Z","date_created":"2022-06-03T22:00:37.327238Z","score":{"bm25":38.92581}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1911,"cites":[109241,185349,1447542,4147904,4229289,4700846,7233771],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015cv1392-69","id":6347085,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/06/03/reporters_committee_for_freedom_of_the_press_v._federal_bureau_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T05:37:13.926113Z","date_created":"2022-06-03T22:00:37.665190Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"99fe49c2ff47b5ed9a107a8e49f75c1d8f4dd386","snippet":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\nTHE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR __)\nFREEDOM OF THE PRESS, et al., )\n)\nPlaintiffs, )\n)\nVv. ) Civil Case No. 15-1392 (RJL)\n\n) (consolidated with No. 18-345)\nFEDERAL BUREAU OF )\nINVESTIGATION, et al., )\n)\nDefendants. )\n\nvil,\nMEMORANDUM OPINION\n\n \n\n(June B, 2022) [Dkts. #63, #64]\n\nPlaintiffs Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (“RCFP”) and the\nAssociated Press (“AP”) (collectively, “plaintiffs”) sued the Federal Bureau of\nInvestigation ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6347085],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4452036/reporters-committee-for-freedom-of-the-press-v-federal-bureau-of/","attorney":"Katie Townsend argued the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs was Bruce D. Brown, Washington, DC., Joseph F. Busa, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for ap-pellees. With him on the brief was Matthew M. Collette, Attorney, Washington, DC.","caseName":"Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Federal Bureau of Investigation","caseNameFull":"REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF the PRESS and Associated Press, Appellants v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and United States Department of Justice, Appellees","citation":["877 F.3d 399"],"citeCount":119,"cluster_id":4452036,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-12-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17-5042","docket_id":6242542,"judge":"Tatel, Kavanaugh, Silberman","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:49:06.177550Z","date_created":"2017-12-15T16:00:41.457715Z","score":{"bm25":38.812855}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112667,184876,187057,187144,372453,380926,406603,469998,552329,710866,780370],"download_url":"http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0/A5D8CB9C0CF29477852581F700539239/$file/17-5042.pdf","id":4229289,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/12/15/reporters_committee_for_freedom_of_the_press_v._fbi.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:27:12.761305Z","date_created":"2017-12-15T16:00:41.464088Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8b59fba9aed805c1a00bb6fab698e0406ad21c77","snippet":"\n\n\n  TATEL, Circuit Judge:\n \n\n  In this Freedom of Information Act case, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Associated Press seek information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding its use of undercover tactics involving impersonation of the media and creation of fake news. After the Bureau turned over several pertinent records, th","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4229289],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9439125/commissioner-of-mental-health-addiction-services-v-freedom-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Commissioner of Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Freedom of Information Commission","caseNameFull":"","citation":["347 Conn. 675"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9439125,"court":"Supreme Court of Connecticut","court_citation_string":"Conn.","court_id":"conn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-08-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC20686","docket_id":68003575,"judge":"Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Keller; Cradle","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-02T02:18:16.116900Z","date_created":"2023-11-14T19:04:32.667945Z","score":{"bm25":37.969532}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":11298883,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/08/29/commissioner_of_mental_health__addiction_services_v._freedom_of_3.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-02T02:18:16.224310Z","date_created":"2026-04-02T02:17:14.723570Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2a84401760856e640b496557c7573503ad303057","snippet":"     COMMISSIONER OF MENTAL HEALTH AND\n         ADDICTION SERVICES ET AL. v.\n          FREEDOM OF INFORMATION\n              COMMISSION ET AL.\n                  (SC 20686)\n            Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins,\n                    Ecker, Keller and Cradle, Js.*\n                                 Syllabus\nPursuant to statute (§ 52-146e (a)), ‘‘communications and records as defined\n   in section 52-146d shall be confidential’’ and ‘‘no person may disclose\n\n  * This case original","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Appeal from the decision of the named defendant determining that the plaintiffs had violated the require- ments of the Freedom of Information Act and ordering that they comply with those requirements by disclosing certain records to the defendant The Hartford Courant et al., brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain and tried to the court, Cordani, J.; judgment sustaining the appeal in part, from which the named defendant appealed and the plaintiffs cross appealed. Reversed in part; judgment directed. Valicia Dee Harmon, commission counsel, for the appellant-cross appellee (named defendant). Alma Rose Nunley, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney gen- eral, Clare Kindall, former solicitor general, and Emily V. Melendez, assistant attorney general, for the appel- lees-cross appellants (plaintiffs).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9896949,11298883,9896950,9896948],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Pursuant to statute (§ 52-146e (a)), ''communications and records as defined in section 52-146d shall be confidential'' and ''no person may disclose This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices D'Auria, Mullins, Ecker and Keller. Thereafter, Justice McDonald and Judge Cradle were added to the panel and have read the briefs and appendices, and listened to a recording of the oral argument prior to participating in this decision. 676 AUGUST, 2023 347 Conn. 675 Commissioner of Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Freedom of Information Commission or transmit any communications and records or the substance or any part or any resume thereof which identify a patient . . . without the consent of the patient or his authorized representative.'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 52-146d (2)), the phrase ''communications and records'' is defined as ''all oral and written communications and records thereof relating to diagnosis or treatment of a patient's mental condition between the patient and a psychiatric mental health provider, or between a member of the patient's family and a psychiatric mental health pro- vider, or between any of such persons and a person participating under the supervision of a psychiatric mental health provider in the accomplish- ment of the objectives of diagnosis and treatment, wherever made, including communications and records which occur in or are prepared at a mental health facility . . . .'' The plaintiffs, the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services and the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), appealed to the trial court from the decision of the named defendant, the Freedom of Information Commission (commission), which ordered the disclosure, without redaction, of a police report to the defendant newspaper and its reporter, which the reporter had requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The police report concerned the death of a patient, P, after a medical event at the Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut Valley Hospital (Whiting), which is a maximum security, mental health treatment facility operated by DMHAS. DMHAS has its own police department, which is stationed at Whiting. The police report consisted of a collection of investigative reports, authored by DMHAS police officers, documenting the police department's investiga- tion into P's death. In ordering disclosure, the commission concluded that the police report was not exempt from disclosure under the provi- sion (§ 1-210 (b) (10)) of FOIA that exempts from disclosure communica- tions privileged by the doctor-patient or therapist-patient relationship or any other common-law or statutory privilege. The commission rea- soned that the police report did not relate to the diagnosis or treatment of P's mental health condition within the meaning of those terms, as set forth in § 52-146d (2), insofar as the officers who prepared the report had not participated in the diagnosis or treatment of P's mental health condition. The commission also concluded that disclosure of the police report did not violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (42 U.S.C. § 1320d et seq.), as implemented by the Privacy Rule (45 C.F.R. § 160.101 et seq.), which generally prohibits a ''covered entity'' from disclosing protected ''health information'' without a valid authorization. The trial court sustained in part the plaintiffs' appeal from the commission's decision. The court concluded that the police report fell within the definition of ''communications and records'' in § 52-146d (2) because the report was prepared at a mental health facility and related to the treatment of a patient's mental health condi- 347 Conn. 675 AUGUST, 2023 677 Commissioner of Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Freedom of Information Commission tion, but it nonetheless determined that the report could be disclosed so long as anything therein that identified a patient was redacted in accordance with § 52-146e (a). The court also concluded that, although the police report was prepared by a ''covered entity'' and contained ''health information'' within the meaning of HIPAA and the Privacy Rule, it could be released, pursuant to those provisions, only after references to any patient's identity and personally identifying health information were redacted. Thereafter, the commission appealed and the plaintiffs cross appealed from the trial court's judgment, seeking a determination as to whether the police report at issue was exempt from disclosure under FOIA, either because it was protected by the psychiatrist-patient privilege set forth in §§ 52-146d (2) and 52-146e (a), or by HIPAA and the Privacy Rule. Held: 1. Although the police report itself was not exempt from disclosure under § 1-210 (b) (10) of FOIA, as it was not a privileged psychiatrist-patient communication under §§ 52-146d (2) and 52-146e (a), this court ordered the redaction of certain information contained therein prior to dis- closure: a. This court concluded that the police report was not a communication or record thereof under § 52-146d (2): It was clear from the plain language of §§ 52-146d (2) and 52-146e (a) that the psychiatrist-patient privilege applies only to communications or records thereof that relate to the diagnosis or treatment of a patient's mental health condition and that are between individuals who fall within the three categories of communicants delineated in § 52-146d (2), namely, the patient and a psychiatric mental health provider, a member of the patient's family and a psychiatric mental health provider, or one of those individuals and a person participating under the supervision of a psychiatric mental health provider in the accomplishment of the objec- tives of the patient's diagnosis and treatment. Moreover, this court clarified that not every communication involving or concerning a psychiatric patient necessarily relates to the diagnosis or treatment of that patient's mental health condition and rejected the notion that its case law stood for the broad proposition that the psychia- trist-patient privilege prohibits the disclosure of all communications and records that are made or prepared at a mental health facility and that identify a patient, regardless of the identities of the individuals between whom the communication is made. In the present case, the police report, which was prepared after P stopped receiving treatment at Whiting, was not a part of P's clinical file, and, in view of the nature and timing of the postmortem investigation con- ducted by the DMHAS police officers, it was clear that the officers who prepared the report were not participating in the accomplishment of the objectives of diagnosis and treatment when they prepared the report 678 AUGUST, 2023 347 Conn. 675 Commissioner of Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Freedom of Information Commission but, instead, were performing the traditional law enforcement function of investigating an untimely death. Furthermore, there was no merit to the plaintiffs' claim that the phrase ''wherever made, including communications and records which occur in or are prepared at a mental health facility'' in § 52-146d (2) expanded the definition of ''communications and records'' to encompass all commu- nications and records that are made or prepared in a mental health treatment facility and that relate to the diagnosis or treatment of a patient's mental condition, regardless of the identity of the individuals between whom the communications are made, as the legislative history and purpose of § 52-146d demonstrated that that phrase was not intended to create a freestanding category of confidential communications and records unique to mental health facilities but, instead, to clarify that the psychiatrist-patient privilege was not limited to communications between patients and private psychiatrists but also extended to communications relating to psychiatric treatment provided at publicly funded institutions that offer inpatient treatment. In addition, in enacting FOIA, the legislature balanced competing princi- ples concerning governmental transparency and patient confidentiality and provided, as it deemed appropriate, for certain exemptions from disclosure to protect patient confidentiality, and the decision as to whether the public policy of this state would best be served by creating a blanket exemption from disclosure of all records and documents relat- ing to patients at Whiting rested with the legislature rather than this court. b. There was substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the commission's finding that the police report was not a communication or record thereof, as those terms are defined in § 52-146d (2): The police report, which related to and was generated after the death of a patient at Whiting, was not a communication between any of the individuals who are included in the three categories of communicants delineated in § 52-146d (2), as the report did not constitute a communica- tion between a patient or a member of a patient's family and a psychiatric mental health provider, or between any such person and a person partici- pating under the supervision of a psychiatric mental health provider in the accomplishment of the objectives of the patient's diagnosis and treatment. Rather, the police report was a communication between DMHAS police officers tasked with investigating P's death and an unknown recipient or recipients. Moreover, regardless of who the intended recipient of the police report was, in view of the death of P, who was the subject of the report, it was clear that the officers were not participating in the accomplishment of the objectives of P's diagnosis and treatment when they prepared the 347 Conn. 675 AUGUST, 2023 679 Commissioner of Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Freedom of Information Commission report but, rather, were performing the traditional law enforcement func- tion of investigating an untimely death and reporting the results of their investigation, and this court could not conclude that the commission acted arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion in determining that the police report was not a communication or record within the meaning of the statutory scheme. Furthermore, although some DMHAS police officers responded to the emergency medical event involving P, it was unclear whether they were participating in their capacity as a member of the mental health treatment team or, alternatively, performing the traditional law enforcement func- tion of responding to an emergency, and, in light of that ambiguity, this court could not substitute its own judgment for that of the commission. Nevertheless, because the police report contained sensitive information regarding the identity of two patients, namely, the names, dates of birth, and home phone numbers of P and a second patient who witnessed the medical event that led to P's death, and because the newspaper reporter explicitly stated in his FOIA request that all references to a patient's identity could be redacted, the commission improperly ordered the dis- closure of that identifying information over the plaintiffs' objection, and, accordingly, this court ordered that all references to patient names, dates of birth, and home phone numbers be redacted from the report prior to disclosure. 2. The police report was not exempt from disclosure under HIPAA and the Privacy Rule: The commission's interpretation of the Privacy Rule was not entitled to deference, as the Privacy Rule was promulgated by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and such deference was not warranted when, as in the present case, the agency interpreting the regulation, namely, the commission, was not responsible for its promul- gation. The Privacy Rule contains various exemptions, including one that permits a covered entity to use or disclose protected health information without a valid authorization to the extent that such use or disclosure is ''required by law,'' and that term is defined to expressly include statutes or regula- tions that compel an entity to use or disclose protected health infor- mation. Even if this court assumed that, under the Privacy Rule, the DMHAS Police Department was a ''covered entity'' and that the police report contained ''health information,'' the police report was not shielded from disclosure under HIPAA because its release was ''required by law'' under FOIA, which is a state statute that requires the disclosure of public records, and the police report, therefore, had to be disclosed, provided 680 AUGUST, 2023 347 Conn. 675 Commissioner of Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Freedom of Information Commission that the names, dates of birth, and home phone numbers of the patients mentioned therein were redacted. (One justice concurring in part and dissenting in part; two justices dissenting in one opinion) Argued September 8, 2022—officially released August 29, 2023"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4897067/reporters-committee-for-freedom-of-the-press-v-fbi/","attorney":"","caseName":"Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. FBI","caseNameFull":"","citation":["3 F.4th 350"],"citeCount":168,"cluster_id":4897067,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-07-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20-5091","docket_id":60034107,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:49:24.223151Z","date_created":"2021-07-02T15:01:38.347885Z","score":{"bm25":37.554855}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109241,118462,186713,187057,375896,384942,389460,404053,406171,486528,532508,556585,592176,599116,618638,2157880,2648096,4123781,4147904,4229289,4288400,4368897,4527401,4684939,6953569,7250679,7250974,7838335,8414070,9425153,9426368,9568677,9799672],"download_url":"https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0/B916D6EB05FB7C69852587060050631E/$file/20-5091-1904901.pdf","id":4700846,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/07/02/reporters_committee_for_freedom_of_the_press_v._fbi.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T11:40:49.012519Z","date_created":"2021-07-02T15:01:38.351211Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"dd08560ca864ffca9d7f1c7b8f94e00334fc55b4","snippet":" United States Court of Appeals\n         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued January 12, 2021                  Decided July 2, 2021\n\n                         No. 20-5091\n\n  REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND\n                ASSOCIATED PRESS,\n                    APPELLANTS\n\n                              v.\n\n  FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND UNITED STATES\n               DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,\n                      APPELLEES\n\n\n        Appeal from the United States Distr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4700846],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4370644/reporters-committee-for-freedom-of-the-press-v-federal-bureau-of/","attorney":"Adam Alexander Marshall, Bruce D. Brown, KatieLynn Boyd Townsend, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff., .Andrew.-Marshall Bernie, U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC, for Defendant.","caseName":"Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Federal Bureau of Investigation","caseNameFull":"The REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Et Al., Defendants","citation":["236 F. Supp. 3d 268","2017 WL 729126","2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25591"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4370644,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-02-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2015-1392","docket_id":4609229,"judge":"Judge Richard J. Leon","lexisCite":"2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25591","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:25:45.099635Z","date_created":"2017-02-23T18:01:21.515725Z","score":{"bm25":36.96641}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1911,"cites":[111410,184071,184876,185567,185974,186016,186064,186713,186972,187345,187372,214960,220173,556586,796441,2465571,2484507],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015cv1392-27","id":4147904,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/02/23/reporters_committee_for_freedom_of_the_press_v._federal_bureau_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:30:59.974737Z","date_created":"2017-02-23T18:01:21.539567Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"76b19d4fc5159da3789c4ac35f8b0ba71c44244c","snippet":"\n\n\n  MEMORANDUM OPINION\n \n\n  RICHARD J. LEON United State District Judge\n \n\n  The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (“RCFP”) and the Associated Press (“AP”) (collectively, “plaintiffs”) are suing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI” or “Bureau”), and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (collectively, “defendants”), under the Freedom of Information A","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4147904],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4328201/international-association-of-drilling-contractors-v-orion-drilling/","attorney":"Robert P. Latham, Amanda A. Zimmerman, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Appellant., Brian Miller, Royston Rayzor Vickery & Williams, L.L.P., Corpus Christi, TX, Kimberly R. Stuart, Crain Catón & James, Houston, TX, for Appellee.","caseName":"International Association of Drilling Contractors v. Orion Drilling Company, LLC and Integrated Drive Systems, LLC","caseNameFull":"INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRILLING CONTRACTORS, Appellant v. ORION DRILLING COMPANY, LLC and Integrated Drive Systems, LLC, Appellees","citation":["512 S.W.3d 483","2016 WL 7104019","2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 12892"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":4328201,"court":"Court of Appeals of Texas","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.","court_id":"texapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-12-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"NO. 01-16-00187-CV","docket_id":4549885,"judge":"Bland, Massengale, Lloyd","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:13:48.099318Z","date_created":"2016-12-07T21:14:17.092223Z","score":{"bm25":36.665974}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108611,112346,117921,118254,894497,894543,894964,895328,1617777,2171731,2193915,2381225,2445166],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=255900&Index=%5c%5cOCA%2dPSQL01%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa01%5cOpinion","id":4105462,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/12/06/international_association_of_drilling_contractors_v._orion_drilling.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:02:05.484860Z","date_created":"2016-12-07T21:14:17.097014Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6d063bcae4af367897f227222cd0071768d02895","snippet":"\n\n\n  OPINION\n \n\n  Jane Bland, Justice\n \n\n  This is an appeal from a trial court’s order authorizing a deposition under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.\n  \n   See\n  \n  Tex. R. Civ. P. 202. Orion Drilling Company, LLC and Integrated Drive Systems, LLC requested the deposition of a corporate representative of the International Association of Drilling Contractor","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4105462],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2325101/university-of-connecticut-v-freedom-of-information-commission/","attorney":"Clifton A. Leonhardt, with whom, on the brief, were Gregory F. Daniels, commission counsel, and Colleen M. Murphy, general counsel, for the appellant (named defendant)., Michael Sullivan, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were George Jepsen, attorney general, and Henry Salton, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (plaintiff).","caseName":"University of Connecticut v. Freedom of Information Commission","caseNameFull":"University of Connecticut v. Freedom of Information Commission Et Al.","citation":["36 A.3d 663","303 Conn. 724","105 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1649","2012 Conn. LEXIS 63"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":2325101,"court":"Supreme Court of Connecticut","court_citation_string":"Conn.","court_id":"conn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-02-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC 18772","docket_id":2195328,"judge":"Rogers, Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, McLachlan, Eveleigh, Harper","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T10:39:17.762137Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T22:33:52.881579Z","score":{"bm25":36.17534}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3977,"cites":[2424162,2549065],"download_url":null,"id":2325101,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:54:59.576180Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:06:45.020717Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a7f81245bd2e12710262bee9cc144387841f5df9","snippet":"\n36 A.3d 663 (2012)\n303 Conn. 724\nUNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT\nv.\nFREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al.\nNo. 18772.\nSupreme Court of Connecticut.\nArgued December 5, 2011.\nDecided February 21, 2012.\nClifton A. Leonhardt, with whom, on the brief, were Gregory F. Daniels, commission counsel, and Colleen M. Murphy, general counsel,","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2325101],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4738077/reporters-committee-for-freedom-of-the-press-v-federal-bureau-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Federal Bureau of Investigation","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4738077,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-03-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2015-1392","docket_id":16998689,"judge":"Judge Richard J. Leon","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:11:02.611706Z","date_created":"2020-03-20T21:00:50.735887Z","score":{"bm25":34.57488}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1911,"cites":[104537,184071,186016,186648,186972,187345,313449,350872,375896,393156,404053,454496,482453,491446,556586,581353,597778,629099,721294,796441,797941,1403504,1466893,1490144,1582860,2147896,2175459,2310002,2326859,2470507,2473671,2473744,2521280],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015cv1392-54","id":4518424,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/03/20/reporters_committee_for_freedom_of_the_press_v._federal_bureau_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T19:29:04.263113Z","date_created":"2020-03-20T21:00:50.752625Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"915965eac6e40458f34fd25289c84a92f63686d2","snippet":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\nTHE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR _ )\nFREEDOM OF THE PRESS, et al, )\n)\nPlaintiffs, )\n)\nVv. ) Civil Case No. 15-1392 (RJL)\n)\nFEDERAL BUREAU OF )\nINVESTIGATION, ef al, ) F T L ie D\n)\nDefendants. ) MAR 2 0 2020\nClerk, U.S. District & Bankruptey\nMEMORANDUM OPINION Courts for the District of Columbia\n\n(MarchZ® 2020) [Dkts. #48, #49]\n\nThe Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (*RCFP”) and the Associated\nPress (“AP”) (collectively, “plaintiffs","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4518424],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7313942/freedom-from-religion-foundation-inc-v-emanuel-county-school-system/","attorney":"Wallace R. Nichols, W.R. Nichols & Associates, PC, Atlanta, GA, Andrew Lewis Seidel, Samuel Troxell Grover, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Madison, WI, for Plaintiffs., Hieu M. Nguyen, Phillip L. Hartley, Harben, Hartley & Hawkins, LLP, Gaines-ville, GA, for Defendants.","caseName":"Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Emanuel County School System","caseNameFull":"FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., Jane Doe, Individually, John Doe, Individually, Jesse Doe, Individually, Jamie Doe, Individually v. EMANUEL COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM (a/k/a/ Emanuel County Schools), Kevin Judy, individually Case No. CV615-013 and in his official capacity as superintendent of Emanuel County School System Valorie Watkins, individually and in her official capacity as principal of Swainsboro Primary School Kaytrene Bright, individually and in her official capacity as a Swainsboro Primary School teacher and Cel Thompson, individually and in her official capacity as a Swainsboro Primary School teacher","citation":["109 F. Supp. 3d 1353","91 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1754","2015 WL 3903368","2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79267"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":7313942,"court":"District Court, S.D. Georgia","court_citation_string":"S.D. Ga.","court_id":"gasd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-06-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. CV615-013","docket_id":64302421,"judge":"Smith","lexisCite":"2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79267","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:34:56.591123Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:28:48.574687Z","score":{"bm25":33.66505}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7231847,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:16:37.541147Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:28:48.585147Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nORDER\n\nG.R. SMITH, United States Magistrate Judge.\nThe plaintiffs have filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by endorsing prayer in a public school classroom located in Emanuel County, Georgia. Doe. 22 (amended complaint). Plaintiffs seek both declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of compensator","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7231847],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7321757/freedom-from-religion-foundation-v-concord-community-schools/","attorney":"Daniel I. Mach PHV, Heather L. Weaver PHV, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, Gavin M. Rose, ACLU of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN, Ryan D. Jayne PHV, Samuel T. Grover PHV, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Madison, WI, for Plaintiffs., Thomas E. Wheeler, II, Anthony W. Overholt, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Timothy S. Shelly, Warrick and Boyn LLP, Elkhart, IN, for Defendant.","caseName":"Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Concord Community Schools","caseNameFull":"FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION v. CONCORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS","citation":["207 F. Supp. 3d 862","2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124454","2016 WL 4798964"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7321757,"court":"District Court, N.D. Indiana","court_citation_string":"N.D. Ind.","court_id":"innd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-09-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 3:15-CV-463 JD","docket_id":64310240,"judge":"Deguilio","lexisCite":"2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124454","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:37:06.827513Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:53:50.393145Z","score":{"bm25":33.37337}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7239667,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T11:24:40.702995Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:53:50.401947Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION AND ORDER\nJON E. DEGUILIO, United States District Court Judge\nThis began as a case about a living nativity scene. For the finale of its annual holiday show, called the Christmas Spectacular, Concord High School would present a living nativity scene during which students in costumes portrayed various pa-tivity figures, while multiple ensembles from a cross-section of the performing arts department ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7239667],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/808172/center-for-individual-freedom-v-madigan/","attorney":"Thomas W. Kirby (argued), Attorney, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Mary Ellen Welsh (argued), Attorney, Office of the Attorney General, Civil Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.","caseName":"Center for Individual Freedom v. Madigan","caseNameFull":"CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lisa MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois Et Al., Defendants-Appellees","citation":["697 F.3d 464","2012 WL 3930437","2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18956"],"citeCount":110,"cluster_id":808172,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"7th Cir.","court_id":"ca7","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-09-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"11-3693","docket_id":795300,"judge":"Posner, Rovner, Hamilton","lexisCite":"2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18956","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T00:30:46.743397Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T12:18:14.699575Z","score":{"bm25":33.19778}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9501336,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T06:26:14.157408Z","date_created":"2023-08-05T19:10:09.653931Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPOSNER, Circuit Judge,\nconcurring in part and dissenting in part.\nI agree with much in the majority opinion, but several provisions of the Illinois statute seem to me to burden the plaintiffs freedom of speech unduly; we should invalidate them.\nThe Center for Individual Freedom is a nonprofit organization engaged in public advocacy. It makes advertisements and","type":"in-part-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9501335,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T06:26:14.167191Z","date_created":"2023-08-05T19:10:09.641703Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nHAMILTON, Circuit Judge.\nThe Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010), is best known for striking down as an unconstitutional restriction of free speech the federal law that bans corporations and labor unions from running campaign-related advertisements in the lead-up to an election. That holding largely overshadowed anoth","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[749,1741,2144,96819,97709,99461,101695,102605,105232,106008,107025,107235,108598,108858,109291,109380,109505,109836,110099,110588,110661,110757,110794,110813,110926,110968,111782,111985,112747,112786,112923,117921,117965,118254,118387,131149,145706,145810,145824,150541,151079,166441,179006,214467,752368,781948,785433,792874,799453,802792,1025593,1087963,1311558,1429805,2474015,2494205],"download_url":"http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=11-3693_002.pdf","id":808172,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2012/09/10/center_for_individua_v._lisa_madiga.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T15:18:14.442494Z","date_created":"2012-09-10T15:12:53Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bb10f2a7126598f34474358c76d757433297b15a","snippet":"                              In the\n\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n               For the Seventh Circuit\n\nNo. 11-3693\n\nC ENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL F REEDOM ,\n                                                  Plaintiff-Appellant,\n                                  v.\n\nL ISA M ADIGAN, Attorney General\nof the State of Illinois et al.,\n                                               Defendants-Appellees.\n\n\n             Appeal from the United States District Court\n        for the Northern District of Ill","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[808172,9501335,9501336],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3187916/freedom-watch-inc-v-central-intelligence-agency/","attorney":"Larry E. Klayman, Law Offices of Larry Klayman, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff., Fred Elmore Haynes, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.","caseName":"Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Central Intelligence Agency","caseNameFull":"Larry KLAYMAN, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant","citation":["170 F. Supp. 3d 114","2016 WL 1118253","2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36834"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":3187916,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-03-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2014-0472","docket_id":3046842,"judge":"Judge Randolph D. Moss","lexisCite":"2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36834","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T18:25:11.870661Z","date_created":"2016-03-22T23:03:07.862530Z","score":{"bm25":32.257282}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2334,"cites":[2448,111410,184071,184811,184976,185496,186834,341477,409323,415608,546873,619318,2296350,2469225],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv0472-23","id":3187853,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/03/22/freedom_watch_inc._v._central_intelligence_agency.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T03:59:41.247727Z","date_created":"2016-03-22T23:03:07.872601Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6939541f3bfb1a775b3e0497216954ce139a70d8","snippet":"\n\n\n \n   *117\n   \n  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\n \n\n  RANDOLPH D. MOSS, United States District Judge\n \n\n  This case arises under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Plaintiff Larry Klayman challenges the Central Intelligence Agency’s (“CIA” or “Agency”)\n  \n   Glomar\n  \n  respo","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3187853],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/762270/latino-officers-association-v-safir/","attorney":"","caseName":"Latino Officers Association v. Safir","caseNameFull":"Latino Officers Association, Anthony Miranda, and Hiram Monserrate v. Howard Safir, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, and the New York City Police Department","citation":["170 F.3d 167","14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1558","1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3450"],"citeCount":44,"cluster_id":762270,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","court_citation_string":"2d Cir.","court_id":"ca2","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1999-03-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"97-7957","docket_id":587284,"judge":"","lexisCite":"1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3450","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-09T19:12:28.769319Z","date_created":"2015-11-20T16:52:44.726655Z","score":{"bm25":30.71105}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[107717,108595,109517,110183,111876,112747,117898,357237,572424,697240,739904,751612,760797,1087950,6939637,6942436,6966080,6981948,9001555,9160928,9432577],"download_url":"http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/170/170.F3d.167.97-7957.html","id":762270,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T12:55:34.862235Z","date_created":"2012-04-18T06:39:36Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ef4028d2ddc50dd69e311d25889f257b86950c64","snippet":"170 F.3d 167\n    14 IER Cases 1558\n    LATINO OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Anthony Miranda, and HiramMonserrate, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.Howard SAFIR, Commissioner of the New York City PoliceDepartment, and the New York City PoliceDepartment, Defendants-Appellants.\n    Docket No. 97-7957.\n    United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit.\n    Argued ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[762270],"source":"R","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2156747/center-for-individual-freedom-inc-v-ireland/","attorney":"Jan Witold Baran, Thomas W. Kirby, Wiley Rein, Washington, DC, William C. Porth, Robinson & McElwee, Charleston, WV, for Plaintiff., Christie S. Utt, Thomas W. Smith, Office of the Attorney General, Charleston, Wv, Joseph L. Jenkins, Nicholas S. Preservati, Preservati Law Offices, Charleston, WV, for Defendants.","caseName":"Center for Individual Freedom, Inc. v. Ireland","caseNameFull":"CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, INC., Plaintiff, v. Betty IRELAND and Timothy D. Boggess, Defendants, v. West Virginia Education Association, Et Al., Intervenor Defendants; West Virginians for Life, Inc. and Zane Lawhorn, Plaintiffs, v. Betty Ireland and Timothy D. Boggess, Defendants","citation":["613 F. Supp. 2d 777","2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15846","2009 WL 749868"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":2156747,"court":"District Court, S.D. West Virginia","court_citation_string":"S.D.W. Va","court_id":"wvsd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-02-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"5:08-cr-00190","docket_id":2027100,"judge":"Thomas E. Johnston","lexisCite":"2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15846","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T09:20:46.967075Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T21:20:49.915122Z","score":{"bm25":27.90261}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1648,"cites":[98854,105221,105547,105746,106514,107783,108598,109380,109517,109532,109611,110813,111782,112398,117921,118240,131149,137005,145706,343297,348663,377019,403775,446363,500731,556436,574911,703885,740441,762034,779114,782420,791890,792335,794489,1025593,1518212,1689901,2369461,2512758,2521343,2623734],"download_url":null,"id":2156747,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T17:47:05.490191Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:29:10.599287Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"081576fd87fd3121917162a8f160db3484b38359","snippet":"\n613 F.Supp.2d 777 (2009)\nCENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, INC., Plaintiff,\nv.\nBetty IRELAND and Timothy D. Boggess, Defendants,\nv.\nWest Virginia Education Association, et al., Intervenor Defendants.\nWest Virginians for Life, Inc. and Zane Lawhorn, Plaintiffs,\nv.\nBetty Ireland and Timothy D. Boggess, Defendants.\nCivil Action Nos. 1:08-cv-00190, 1:08-cv-01133.\nUnited States District Cou","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2156747],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}