Whether the Department of Health and Human Services May Provide the Government Accountability Office Access to Information in the National Directory of New Hires
Background
- NDNH is a Federal Parent Locator Service device within HHS's FPLS that collects state-sourced employment data for enforcing child support and related purposes.
- 42 U.S.C. § 653(l) imposes a flat prohibition on disclosing FPLS information unless expressly authorized, and expressly refers to disclosure subject to §6103; the provision restricts to specified recipients.
- GAO seeks access to NDNH data under 31 U.S.C. § 716(a), which generally authorizes the Comptroller General to inspect agency records for information about duties, powers, and activities.
- HHS may disclose FPLS information to specified Executive Branch officials under § 653(b), (c), (j), but § 653(l) does not expressly authorize disclosure to GAO.
- There is no express statutory authorization in § 653(l) for GAO, and the legislative history does not show an intent to exempt GAO from the disclosure ban.
- This Office concludes that § 653(l) prohibits HHS from providing GAO access to personally identifiable NDNH information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 42 U.S.C. 653(l) bars GAO access to NDNH data | GAO argues § 716(a) overrides restrictions to access NDNH | HHS argues § 653(l) prohibits GAO disclosure absent express authorization | § 653(l) prohibits GAO access to NDNH data |
| Whether § 31 U.S.C. 716(a) can override § 653(l) | GAO contends 716(a) provides broad access across the Exec Branch | HHS asserts specific § 653(l) controls over GAO access | 716(a) cannot override the explicit restrictions in § 653(l) |
| Whether GAO enforcement provisions affect access | GAO cites § 716(d) enforcement to compel access | § 716(d) limitations do not create a right overcoming § 653(l) prohibition | GAO’s right to information under § 716(a) is not enlarged by § 716 enforcement when § 653(l) restricts disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1974) (specific statute not controlled by general when no clear intent)
- Busic v. United States, 446 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1980) (specific statute governs over general when text requires)
- Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1987) (general statute not controlling over a more specific statutory provision)