NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration
What's at Stake
This case in the New York Court of Appeals (the highest New York state court) asks whether a government agency can conceal guidance that it issues to judges on how to apply the law in adjudicating cases. A few years ago, news reporting brought to light that a New York administrative agency has a practice of issuing such guidance to state court judges without disclosing it to the public. Because the agency's guidance informs how judges decide cases—with important implications for people’s rights—the New York Civil Liberties Union requested access to it under New York’s Freedom of Information Law. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued. The NYCLU and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative are arguing that the public is entitled to the guidance and that there is a strong public interest in the transparent administration of justice.
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
Summary
In 2021, a leaked memo revealed that the New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA) was urging judges to narrowly interpret a recent, landmark court decision ordering due process protections for people accused of crimes. Before that memo leaked, it was not widely known that OCA, an agency with administrative responsibilities over the state court system, played a role in courts’ substantive decisionmaking. Following the leak, an OCA spokesperson stated that it was the agency’s “normal practice” to issue such legal guidance to judges.
The NYCLU subsequently learned about several other OCA memos. These memos further indicated that OCA’s guidance affects the adjudication of important rights—including whether defendants in criminal cases are granted bail and whether courts can order people to be forcibly committed for mental health reasons.
The NYCLU filed a Freedom of Information Law request requesting copies of OCA’s guidance to judges. OCA denied the FOIL request, contending that it was overbroad and that the guidance is privileged. The NYCLU then filed suit in New York state court, arguing that the public is entitled to the guidance under FOIL, which makes all government records presumptively open for public inspection. The trial court ordered OCA to produce its guidance, agreeing with the NYCLU that the request was reasonably tailored and that the guidance is not privileged. OCA appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed.
The NYCLU and ACLU are asking the New York Court of Appeals to reverse the Appellate Division’s decision. We argue that the NYCLU’s request was not overbroad because it specified the subject matter, time period, authors, and recipients of the records sought. We also argue that OCA’s guidance cannot be privileged because OCA failed to establish an attorney-client relationship with judges and because agency policies that affect the public are not privileged. Finally, we highlight that OCA’s withholding of its guidance is antithetical to court transparency and government accountability.