The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether Grand Rapids violated the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when the city took 13 months to fill an approved request for public records.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan filed the lawsuit in 2023 after it made a series of public records requests in an effort to understand why the city took so long to hand over approved documents. Michigan’s FOIA requires local governments to respond to requests within five business days, but it does not set a deadline for turning over the records. The ACLU argued the time lag amounted to “constructive denial” of its record requests.
Among other things, the city of Grand Rapids argues it gets so many public records requests that can it take a long time to fulfill them. The city wrote in a brief filed with the Michigan Supreme Court that it works on a “first-in, first out” system that places every records request in a queue based on when it was filed.
“The ACLU simply did not like the time estimate for what it perceived to be its relatively small request,” said the brief, which suggested the ACLU was seeking “special treatment.”
But no one should have to wait over a year to have records request completed, said Joseph Richotte, an attorney for the Michigan Press Association, which is not a direct party to the case. He said local governments have a responsibility to fulfill all public document requests in a timely manner.
“I think to the average voter who would be looking for the information to cast an intelligent vote, 18 months is certainly not going to be seen as reasonable,” he told Michigan Public Radio, “and in many cases can push out the disclosure of information beyond the election in which the information would be useful.”
A three-judge Michigan Court of Appeals panel ruled unanimously last year that the state Freedom of Information Act does not set a deadline for fulfilling requests and it would not be proper for the judiciary to set a deadline where the law is silent.
The Michigan Supreme Court order accepting the case did not set a date for oral arguments, which will likely take place some time next year.
