Whether Individuals May Be Required to Provide Basic Identifying Information in Order to Access the Financial Disclosure Reports Made Available on Agency Websites During the Period Governed by Section 11(a) of the STOCK Act
Background
- Stock Act section 11(a) requires interim online public access to executive-branch disclosures; 11(a)(1) mandates public availability on agency websites by Sept 30, 2012, with entry into a permanent OGE database under 11(b) by Oct 4, 2013; 11(b)(2) states no login is required to search/sort data in the permanent system; 105(b)(2) of EIGA imposes identifying-info prerequisites for obtaining reports under 105; OGE authority to prescribe procedures sits under 402 of EIGA; the interim access regime may entail identifying-info prerequisites during 11(a) but not for 11(b); the Opinion concludes implementing a basic-identity requirement during the 11(a) interim period is permissible and consistent with both statutes; the alternative reading of 11(b)(2) is unpersuasive; a login prohibition does not bar access-control during the interim period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 105(b)(2) applies to 11(a) access | Plaintiff argues 105(b)(2) governs access. | Defendant (OGE) argues 105(b)(2) does not apply to 11(a) access. | 105(b)(2) does not apply to 11(a) access during interim period. |
| Whether basic identifying information may be required during 11(a) interim | Plaintiff contends such a requirement is not authorized. | Defendant argues agencies may impose reasonable access prerequisites. | A basic-identifying-information prerequisite is permissible during 11(a) interim. |
| Whether 11(b)(2) login prohibition bars 11(a) prerequisites | Login ban would preclude any identifying-info requirement. | Login ban applies only to 11(b), not to 11(a) procedures. | Login prohibition does not bar 11(a) access prerequisites. |
| Authority for agencies to implement 11(a) procedures | Unclear authority to impose access conditions. | 11(a) read with 402 EIGA assigns agency authority under OGE supervision. | Agencies may implement 11(a) procedures under 402 EIGA with OGE direction. |
| Scope of legislative-history support for identifying-info requirement | Historical readings imply prohibitions. | Historical context supports agency discretion to condition access. | Legislative history does not preclude reasonable 11(a) prerequisites. |
Key Cases Cited
- Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh, 543 U.S. 50 (2004) (interpretation of section/term usage in statutes (section/subsection))
- Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2011) (definition of ‘file’; meaning of ‘under’ in statutes)
- Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33 (2008) (definition of ‘under’; statutory interpretation guidance)
- Dir., Workers’ Comp. Programs v. Rasmussen, 440 U.S. 29 (1979) (drafting and interpretive approach to agency authority)