McBurney v. Young, 133 S. Ct. 1709

Background

Petitioners McBurney and Hurlbert, citizens of Rhode Island and California, request Virginia public records under FOIA § 2.2-3700 et seq.
Virginia FOIA restricts access to Virginia citizens, denying noncitizens the same right to inspect public records.
Petitioners sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Privileges and Immunities Clause and, for Hurlbert, the dormant Commerce Clause.
District Court grants summary judgment for Virginia; Court of Appeals affirms.
Virginia FOIA’s stated purpose is to provide ready access to public records for Virginia citizens and to limit costs borne by Virginia taxpayers.
Petitioners ultimately obtain some requested information through Virginia’s Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act (GDCDPA), but not all requested materials.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Virginia FOIA violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause by denying noncitizens access to information?	Hurlbert argues noncitizens are denied fundamental information access.	Virginia asserts the FOIA serves core governance interests and is not a protectionist measure.	No violation; FOIA serves nonprotectionist, informational purpose.
Does Virginia FOIA burden the right to own and transfer property for noncitizens?	Restricting access to records like notices and encumbrances impedes property transactions.	Noncitizens may obtain records via other Virginia statutes and online access; burden is minimal.	No violation; noncitizens retain reasonable access to property records.
Does Virginia FOIA violate the dormant Commerce Clause by restricting information access to noncitizens?	Citizens-only provision discriminates against out-of-state information seekers affecting interstate commerce.	FOIA does not regulate or burden interstate commerce; it provides a state service.	No violation; statute concerns information access, not interstate commerce.

Key Cases Cited

Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978) (privileges and immunities protection for citizens pursuing a common calling)
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985) (right to pursue a common calling within another state)
Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948) (nonresidents' access to state resources weighed against protectionism)
United Building & Construction Trades Council of Camden County v. Mayor & Council of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984) (nonresidents' ability to compete in state contracting at issue)
Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Clarendon Boat Oar Co., 257 U.S. 533 (1922) (test for whether state action burdens out-of-state commerce or favors in-state interests)
Canadian Northern R. Co. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553 (1920) (nonresident access to courts principle in Privileges and Immunities analysis)
Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978) (no constitutional right to access all information under FOIA)
Los Angeles Police Dept. v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., 528 U.S. 32 (1999) (government decision not to disclose information is permissible)
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011) (First Amendment remarks on breadth of information rights (Breyer, J., dissenting))
Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980) (state programs that benefit state-borne beneficiaries may be permissible)
Department of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (2008) (government function not subject to dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny)
Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 (1986) (dormant Commerce Clause protections against protectionism)
New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269 (1988) (economic protectionism concerns under Commerce Clause principles)
Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978) (analysis guiding whether a law is protectionist or facially neutral)
Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824) (dictum on interstate commerce scope (early framing))