FOIA Fight: Attorney Urges Court to Reject University of Michigan Secrecy Claim

Key Takeaways

• University seeks constitutional exemption from Michigan FOIA
• Lower courts ordered disclosure of Bentley Library donor papers
• Attorney cites unrecognized doctrine and legal “mulligan”
• Case could set precedent for public‑university transparency
• FOIA damages doctrine challenged for limiting requester compensation

Pulse Analysis

The University of Michigan’s attempt to claim constitutional immunity from the Michigan Freedom of Information Act raises a fundamental question about the balance between academic freedom and public accountability. While the university argues that its governing board should be shielded under Article VIII, Section 5 of the state constitution, no precedent exists for such a blanket exemption. Courts have consistently interpreted FOIA as a tool to ensure transparency, especially when public institutions receive and preserve donor‑provided records. The Bentley Historical Library’s collection, donated by influential immigration figure Dr. John Tanton, sits at the heart of this conflict, illustrating how historical documents can become flashpoints for legal battles over access.

Legal experts note that the university’s strategy hinges on two relatively obscure doctrines. The first, derived from Residential Ratepayer Consortium, permits agencies to create new FOIA exemptions mid‑litigation, effectively granting a “legal mulligan” that forces requesters into costly appeals. The second, based on Local Area Watch, limits punitive damages for requesters despite a 2014 legislative amendment mandating such awards. By challenging these precedents, attorney Philip L. Ellison seeks to close loopholes that allow public bodies to evade transparency obligations, reinforcing the principle that public records cannot be hidden due to private donor preferences.

If the Michigan Supreme Court rejects the university’s claim, the decision will reverberate beyond Ann Arbor, setting a clear boundary for how public universities handle FOIA requests. It would affirm that institutional immunity cannot be invoked to sidestep statutory transparency, thereby strengthening FOIA’s role in holding public entities accountable. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the university could embolden other state‑funded institutions to pursue constitutional shields, potentially eroding public access to government‑related information. Stakeholders across the legal, academic, and policy arenas are watching closely, as the outcome will shape the future of open records law in Michigan and possibly influence national discourse on governmental openness.