## Facts

- Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA) grants access to public records to Virginia citizens but not to nonresidents.
- Mark J. McBurney, a Rhode Island citizen and former Virginia resident, sought records from the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) about delays in his child-support case and related agency practices.
- DCSE denied McBurney’s VFOIA request, citing both confidentiality and his noncitizen status under VFOIA.
- McBurney later obtained much of the information through other Virginia mechanisms, but not all material he had requested.
- Roger W. Hurlbert, a California citizen operating a business that obtained public real estate tax assessment records for clients, requested Henrico County tax records under VFOIA.
- Henrico County denied Hurlbert’s request because he was not a Virginia citizen.
- McBurney and Hurlbert filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging VFOIA’s citizens-only limitation violated Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause and (as to Hurlbert) the dormant Commerce Clause.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Virginia, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether limiting FOIA access to state citizens violates the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause by burdening nonresidents’ asserted fundamental rights, including pursuing a common calling, owning and transferring property, and accessing courts.
2. Whether the citizens-only FOIA limitation discriminates against or unduly burdens interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
- The Court held that VFOIA’s citizens-only provision does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause because access to state public records through FOIA is not a fundamental privilege or immunity of citizenship.
- The Court rejected the claim that VFOIA impermissibly burdened nonresidents’ fundamental rights to pursue a common calling, to own and transfer property, or to access courts.
- The Court held that VFOIA does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause because it does not regulate or burden interstate commerce in a constitutionally forbidden manner, and any effects on out-of-state businesses are incidental.
- Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment, reiterating his view that dormant Commerce Clause doctrine lacks a firm constitutional basis, while agreeing the statute was valid.

## Legal Principles

- The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects only those privileges and immunities that are fundamental; a generalized right to obtain state records through FOIA is not fundamental.
- A state does not violate Article IV merely by restricting a state-created access mechanism for government records to its own citizens, absent a showing that the law burdens a fundamental right protected by the Clause.
- Incidental effects on nonresidents’ profit-seeking activities do not establish an Article IV violation where the law’s purpose is not protectionist discrimination against nonresidents.
- A state FOIA citizens-only rule does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause where the state is not regulating an interstate market and is instead controlling access to a product it creates and maintains as recordkeeper.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Virginia’s citizens-only FOIA limitation, concluding it neither denies nonresidents any fundamental Article IV privilege nor constitutes unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce, and it confirmed that states may restrict FOIA access to their own citizens without creating a federal constitutional right to state records.


McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (2013)