Texas Department of Public Safety v. Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P., 343 S.W.3d 112

Two reporters requested Governor Perry security travel vouchers from DPS, covering out-of-state trips in 2001 and 2007 and a broader travel period.
DPS withheld the vouchers under core public information concerns and common-law privacy, and the Attorney General ruled disclosure would place the governor at imminent risk of physical harm.
Publishers sued for mandamus to compel disclosure; trial court ordered disclosure; court of appeals affirmed withholding under Industrial Foundation precedent.
Texas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the common law right to be free from physical harm can be an ôother lawö exception to core public information.
Court remanded for trial court to assess, document-by-document, what information may be withheld due to substantial threat of physical harm, and to consider 418.176 (Homeland Security) grounds on remand.
Court emphasized that core public information is not automatically exempt and that any common-law protection must be grounded in statute or explicit judicial decision, with remand to determine proper redactions.
Note: Justice Wainwright concurred in judgment but would not join the opinion’s approach to creating common-law exceptions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether common law right to be free from physical harm is ôother lawö for core public information.	Cox argues common law privacy suffices; the right to physical safety is protected.	DPS argues common law privacy extends to preventing physical harm; Court should adopt substantial-threat standard.	Yes; the common-law right to freedom from physical harm applies to core public information.
Whether disclosure may be withheld if it would substantially threaten physical safety.	Publishers contend information should be disclosed to show taxpayer spending.	DPS may withhold specific details that create substantial threat of harm.	Information may be withheld on remand if disclosure would substantially threaten physical harm; new trial ordered.
Whether Government Code § 418.176 or Homeland Security grounds apply to vouchers.	DPS seeks confidentiality under § 418.176 as emergency-response information.	§ 418.176 should apply; remand needed to litigate its applicability.	Remand to consider § 418.176 and related grounds on the specific records.
Whether the court should remand to determine which voucher details to redact.	Complete disclosure advances public understanding of state expenditure.	Redaction can protect security-sensitive details.	Remand appropriate to tailor disclosures and apply proper exceptions.

Industrial Foundation of the South v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976) (set out the traditional privacy-based exception for disclosure under the PIA)
In re City of Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. 2001) (defines 'other law' to include judicial decision and related confidentiality)
Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Am. Train Dispatchers Ass'n, 499 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1991) (interprets 'all other law' language as broad, informing 'other law' scope)
Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858 (Tex. 1973) (early articulation of privacy rights as a distinct interest)
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1967) (recognizes personal security as a protected interest)