## Facts

- Delaware’s FOIA provided that public records must be open for inspection and copying by “any citizen of the State” and required reasonable access and copying facilities for “any citizen.”
- Matthew Lee, a New York resident who worked as a journalist/advocate, requested Delaware Attorney General records about Delaware’s participation in a multi-state settlement involving alleged deceptive lending practices.
- Delaware denied the request solely because Lee was not a Delaware citizen, citing the statutory citizens-only language.
- Lee renewed his request and was again denied on the same residency ground.
- Lee sued in federal court, alleging the citizens-only limitation violated the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause by burdening his ability to pursue his occupation and to participate in matters of national political and economic concern.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Lee and permanently enjoined Delaware officials from enforcing the citizens-only restriction against him, requiring nonresidents’ requests to be handled the same as residents’ requests.

## Issues

1. Whether Delaware’s citizens-only limitation on access to public records discriminates against out-of-state citizens within the meaning of the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause.
2. Whether denying nonresidents access to state public records burdens fundamental privileges protected by the Clause, including pursuit of a common calling and participation in the political process.
3. If a fundamental privilege is burdened, whether Delaware showed a substantial reason for the discrimination and a close relationship between the discrimination and the state’s objectives.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Lee and affirmed the permanent injunction.
- The court held the FOIA citizens-only provision was facial discrimination against out-of-state citizens, as shown by the statute’s text and the denial letters.
- The court concluded the restriction burdened fundamental Article IV interests because access to the requested information bore on Lee’s ability to pursue his profession and to engage in national political discourse.
- The court rejected Delaware’s asserted justifications—defining the political community and avoiding administrative/fiscal burdens—as insufficient under Privileges and Immunities scrutiny.
- The court upheld the injunction as appropriately focused on the unconstitutional residency limitation rather than invalidating the entire statutory scheme.

## Legal Principles

- Privileges and Immunities analysis proceeds in two steps: (1) whether the state discriminates against out-of-state citizens as to a privilege fundamental to interstate harmony; and (2) if so, whether the state proves a substantial reason for the different treatment and a substantial relationship between the discrimination and the stated objectives.
- A state law that expressly limits a benefit to in-state citizens constitutes facial discrimination against nonresidents.
- The Clause protects the ability of out-of-state citizens to pursue a common calling on terms substantially equal to in-state citizens.
- When denial of access to government information effectively burdens the pursuit of a common calling or participation in national political discourse, the Clause can be implicated.
- Generalized administrative or cost concerns ordinarily do not justify discrimination where a fundamental privilege is burdened; neutral measures (such as fees or reasonable processing limits) may address burdens without residency discrimination.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that Delaware’s citizens-only FOIA restriction unconstitutionally discriminated against out-of-state citizens by burdening protected interests in pursuing a common calling and participating in national political discussion, and it affirmed an injunction requiring equal processing of nonresidents’ FOIA requests.


Lee v. Minner, 458 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2006)