Jackson v. State Office of Administrative Hearings
351 S.W.3d 290
| Tex. | 2011Background
- Jackson requested copies of SOAH decisions and orders from Title IV-D cases (Nov 2005-Jan 2006) under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA).
- SOAH refused disclosure citing section 552.101 and Family Code § 231.108 and related federal law.
- Ten representative SOAH orders were provided for in camera review; most contain only the respondent’s name, license number, and case references.
- One order contains additional information about a respondent (disability status, living arrangements, etc.).
- The trial court and court of appeals held the information confidential under the cited authorities; the Supreme Court granted review.
- The Court holds that the requested decisions and orders must be disclosed with redactions for confidential information under 231.108 and related law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 552.101 or 552.022 governs disclosure | Jackson argues 552.022 controls; 552.101 is not an applicable exception here. | SOAH contends 552.101 and other law render the information confidential. | 552.022 governs, with narrowly construed express exceptions under other law. |
| Whether 42 U.S.C. § 654(26) or § 231.108 make the information confidential | Neither statute expressly covers the entirety of SOAH’s orders as confidential information. | SOAH relies on federal and Family Code provisions to withhold information. | Neither fully exempt SOAH’s orders; redaction of confidential data is required where applicable. |
| Whether 231.108(a) confidentiality applies to information in the orders | The information in the orders is not a 'file or record of services' under § 231.108. | § 231.108(a) makes confidential the information obtained during provision of Chapter 231 services if it appears in the orders. | Confidential information obtained during Chapter 231 services must be redacted, not the entire orders. |
| Whether Rule 76a or APA provisions modify disclosure | Rule 76a and 2001.004 mandate broader disclosure. | Statutes and Family Code provisions control; specific statute overrides general rule. | Specific statutes (e.g., Family Code § 231.108) prevail; Rule 76a is trumped to the extent of conflicts. |
| Attorney's fees eligibility under TPIA and DJA | As a licensed attorney, Jackson should recover fees. | Pro se status defense applies; DJA and TPIA fee provisions do not permit recovery here. | Jackson cannot recover attorney's fees under the TPIA or the DJA. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000) (liberal construction in favor of disclosure)
- In re Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. 2001) (must identify 'other law' expressly conferring confidentiality under 552.022)
- First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. 2010) (specific statute prevails over conflicting general provision)
- Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1991) (pro se attorney-fee recovery not allowed; agency representation concept)
- Burka v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 142 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (pro se attorney-fee recovery generally not allowed post-Kay)
- MBM Financial Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., 292 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2009) (fees under DJA may be inappropriate when purely incidental to other claims)
- John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Mem'l Found. v. Dewhurst, 90 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. 2002) (restrictive approach to DJA fee recovery when claims are incidental)
- Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Cox Tex. Newspapers, 343 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2011) (recognizes 'other law' as exception to disclosure under 552.022)