McBurney v. Cuccinelli
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5926
E.D. Va.2011Background
- McBurney and Hurlbert sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Virginia's VFOIA as to noncitizens.
- McBurney, a former Virginia resident, sought Virginia records; DCSE denied, then offered non-VFOIA access via state act.
- Hurlbert, a California records broker, was denied noncitizen access to Virginia real estate records; records ultimately provided to his Virginia attorney.
- Procedural history: district court dismissed several parties; Fourth Circuit remanded for merits review; court now adjudicates on cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Court addresses whether VFOIA’s citizens-only provision violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause or the Dormant Commerce Clause, and whether rights asserted are fundamental.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hurlbert has standing to challenge VFOIA | Hurlbert alleges ongoing injury and lost revenue from noncitizen restriction | No concrete injury; future harm speculative; no redressable injury | Hurlbert has standing |
| Whether right to access information is a fundamental right under P&I Clause | Right to information is fundamental for national livelihood | Right is not fundamental; information openness is not historically protected | Not fundamental under P&I Clause |
| Whether VFOIA burdens the right to pursue a common calling | Hurlbert’s ability to earn via records retrieval is constrained | Common calling protected; discrimination incidental, not a violation | Not a violation of P&I for common calling |
| Whether VFOIA burdens the right to access courts | Noncitizens lack equal access to courts due to records access limits | Does not impair actual court access; discovery suffices; rights need not be identical | Not implicated under the facts |
| Whether VFOIA violates the Dormant Commerce Clause | Citizens-only provision discriminates against interstate commerce | Government functions; not economic protectionism; incidental effects permissible | No Dormant Commerce Clause violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948) (substantial reason and relation to state objectives in P&I analysis)
- Piper v. New Hampshire, 470 U.S. 274 (1985) (fundamental rights under P&I; some discrimination permissible)
- Canadian Northern Ry. Co. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553 (1920) (right to access courts not identical for noncitizens)
- Camden v. Building Trades Council, 465 U.S. 208 (1984) (P&I balancing: substantial reason and relation to objectives)
- Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Mon., 436 U.S. 371 (1978) (fundamental rights require vitality for national, not all rights are fundamental)
- Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005) (facially discriminatory state statutes scrutinized under Commerce Clause)