569 U.S. 221 (2013)
Mark J. McBurney, a citizen of Rhode Island and former Virginia resident whose ex-wife is a Virginia citizen, sought assistance from the Commonwealth's Division of Child Support Enforcement after she defaulted on child support.1 He alleged a nine-month delay.2 He filed a Virginia FOIA request seeking documents and communications relating to his family and the handling of claims like his.3 The agency denied his request because he was not a Virginia citizen.4 McBurney later obtained much of the information specific to his case by requesting it under Virginia's Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act.5 He did not receive broader policy materials about the agency's handling of similar claims.6
Roger W. Hurlbert, a citizen of California and the sole proprietor of Sage Information Services, was hired to obtain real estate tax records for properties in Henrico County, Virginia.7 He filed a Virginia FOIA request with the Henrico County Real Estate Assessor's Office that was denied because he was not a Virginia citizen.8
Petitioners filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief after their requests were denied.9 The District Court granted summary judgment for Virginia.10 The Court of Appeals affirmed.11 Several other States have similarly limited FOIA laws.12 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Circuits on the constitutionality of such citizens-only FOIA provisions.13
Whether the Virginia Freedom of Information Act violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause by denying noncitizens the opportunity to pursue a common calling?14
No. Hurlbert, identified in the ESTABLISHED FACTS as the sole proprietor of Sage Information Services who was hired to obtain real estate tax records for properties in Henrico County, Virginia, sought those records through a Virginia FOIA request that was denied on citizenship grounds.17 The rule requires a showing that the citizens-only provision was enacted for the protectionist purpose of burdening out-of-state citizens.18 Yet the ESTABLISHED FACTS establish only that petitioners filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after their requests were denied and that the District Court granted summary judgment for Virginia.19 Petitioners have not shown the provision was enacted to give Virginia citizens a competitive economic advantage.20
The distinction also recognizes that Virginia taxpayers fund the fixed costs of recordkeeping.21
The Virginia Freedom of Information Act does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause by denying noncitizens the opportunity to pursue a common calling.22
Whether the Act violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause by denying noncitizens the ability to own and transfer property?23
The right to acquire and dispose of property has long been considered a privilege of citizenship.24 A State might violate the Clause if it prevented out-of-state citizens from accessing records necessary to property transactions.25 The requirement is satisfied when nonresidents may use alternative mechanisms such as clerk offices or online resources that impose no significant burden.26
No. Hurlbert, identified in the ESTABLISHED FACTS as the California citizen hired to obtain real estate tax records, was denied a FOIA request but could access title, mortgage, and lien documents through circuit court records open to any person under Virginia law and through Henrico County online postings of assessments.27 The ESTABLISHED FACTS show that McBurney obtained much of his specific case information under the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act.28 These alternatives demonstrate that the FOIA restriction imposes no significant burden on the ability to own or transfer property in Virginia.29
The Act does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause by denying noncitizens the ability to own and transfer property.30
Whether the Act violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause by burdening noncitizens' access to the courts of the Commonwealth?31
The Privileges and Immunities Clause secures citizens of one State the right to resort to the courts of another equally with the citizens of the latter State.32 That requirement is satisfied if nonresidents are given access to the courts on terms that are reasonable and adequate to enforce their rights, even if not identical in extent to those accorded residents.33
No. McBurney, identified in the ESTABLISHED FACTS as the Rhode Island citizen and former Virginia resident who alleged a nine-month delay by the Division of Child Support Enforcement, received much of the information specific to his case under the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act.34 The ESTABLISHED FACTS further establish that petitioners filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after FOIA denials and that the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Virginia.35 Virginia's rules of civil procedure provide discovery mechanisms and subpoenas duces tecum available to noncitizens.36 Judicial records remain accessible to both citizens and noncitizens, satisfying the reasonable-and-adequate standard.37
The Act does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause by burdening noncitizens' access to the courts of the Commonwealth.38
Whether the Act violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause by denying noncitizens access to public information on equal terms with citizens?39
The Privileges and Immunities Clause does not protect a broad, generalized right to access public information.40 The Constitution does not guarantee the existence of FOIA laws.41 No such constitutional right to obtain all information provided by FOIA statutes exists.42 Such a sweeping right was not recognized at common law or in the early Republic.43
No. Both McBurney and Hurlbert, identified in the ESTABLISHED FACTS as out-of-state citizens whose FOIA requests were denied solely on citizenship grounds, sought broader policy materials and real estate tax records that the Commonwealth declined to provide under the citizens-only provision.44 The ESTABLISHED FACTS show that the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Circuits on the constitutionality of such citizens-only FOIA provisions after the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Virginia.45 Because no fundamental privilege encompasses a generalized right to public information on equal terms, the restriction does not abridge any protected interest under the Clause.46
The Act does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause by denying noncitizens access to public information on equal terms with citizens.47
Whether the Act violates the dormant Commerce Clause?48
The dormant Commerce Clause limits state action that interferes with the natural functioning of interstate markets or that has the purpose or effect of economic protectionism.49 A State may limit benefits generated by a state program to those who fund the state treasury and whom the State was created to serve.50 The Virginia FOIA neither prohibits access to an interstate market nor imposes burdensome regulation on such a market.51
No. Hurlbert, identified in the ESTABLISHED FACTS as the California proprietor whose business obtains real estate tax records on clients' behalf, was denied a FOIA request for Henrico County records.52 The ESTABLISHED FACTS establish that the District Court granted summary judgment for Virginia and the Court of Appeals affirmed, with the Supreme Court granting certiorari to resolve a Circuit conflict.53 The FOIA creates and makes available copies of state records that would not otherwise exist, constituting a service to Virginia citizens funded by state taxpayers rather than regulation of an interstate market.54
The Act does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause.55
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion in which he joined the majority's opinion in full.56 He acknowledged that the Court correctly applied existing dormant Commerce Clause precedents to conclude that Virginia's citizens-only FOIA provision does not violate the Clause.57 Nevertheless, Justice Thomas maintained his consistent view that the negative Commerce Clause finds no support in the Constitution.58
He argued that the doctrine makes little sense as a matter of constitutional interpretation and has demonstrated itself to be virtually unworkable when applied to actual cases.59 As a result, he concluded that the negative Commerce Clause cannot justify striking down a state statute like the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.60