# United States Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts > Supreme Court of the United States · June 23, 1989 · 492 U.S. 136 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431816 ## Case - **Full name:** United States Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 23, 1989 - **Citations:** 492 U.S. 136; 16 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1849; 57 U.S.L.W. 4925; 63 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1492; 109 S. Ct. 2841; 106 L. Ed. 2d 112; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 3137 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Blackmun - **Judges:** Marshall, Rehnquist, Brennan, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, White, Blackmun - **Cited by:** 794 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431816 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that, for documents to qualify as "agency records" subject to federal FOIA, the agency must either create or obtain the records and control them at the time the request is made, and noting that "the term 'agency records' is not so broad as to include personal materials… - holding that, for documents to qualify as "agency records,” an agency "must either create or obtain the requested materials,” and "must be in control of the requested materials” in the sense that they "have come into the agency's possession in the legitimate conduct of its off… - holding that, for material to be deemed agency records within the meaning of FOIA: (1) the agency must have “create[d] or obtain[ed]” the requested material, and (2) the “agency must be in control of the requested material at the time the FOIA request is made” - stating that “[ejven when an agency does not deny a FOIA request outright, the requesting party may still be able to claim improper’ withholding by alleging that the agency has responded in an inadequate manner” - affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision that the tax decisions were agency records because “the Department has the discretion to use the decisions as it sees fit, because the Department routinely uses the decisions in performing its official duties, and because the decisions … ## Opinion text *156 Justice Blackmun, dissenting. The Court in this ease has examined once again the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C. § 552 . It now determines that under the Act the Department of Justice on request must make available copies of federal district court orders and opinions it receives in the course of its litigation of tax cases on behalf of the Federal Government. The majority holds that these qualify as agency records, within the meaning of § 552(a)(4)(B), and that they were improperly withheld by the Department when respondent asked for their production. The Court’s analysis, I suppose, could be regarded as a fairly routine one. I do not join the Court’s opinion, however, because it seems to me that the language of the statute is not that clear or conclusive on the issue and, more important, because the result the Court reaches cannot be one that was within the intent of Congress when the FOIA was enacted. Respondent Tax Analysts, although apparently a nonprofit organization for federal income tax purposes, is in business and in that sense is a commercial enterprise. It sells summaries of these opinions and supplies full texts to major electronic data bases. The result of its now-successful effort in this litigation is to impose the cost of obtaining the court orders and opinions upon the Government and thus upon taxpayers generally. There is no question that this material is available elsewhere. But it is quicker and more convenient, and less “frustrat[ing],” see ante, at 140, for respondent to have the Department do the work and search its files and produce the items than it is to apply to the respective court clerks. This, I feel, is almost a gross misuse of the FOIA. What respondent demands, and what the Court permits, adds nothing whatsoever to public knowledge of Government operations. That, I had thought, and the majority acknowledges, see ante, at 142, was the real purpose of the FOIA and the *157 spirit in which the statute has been interpreted thus far. See, e. g., Forsham v. Harris, 445 U. S. 169, 178 (1980); NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U. S. 214, 242-243 (1978). I also sense, I believe not unwarrantedly, a distinct lack of enthusiasm on the part of the majority for the result it reaches in this case. If, as I surmise, the Court’s decision today is outside the intent of Congress in enacting the statute, Congress perhaps will rectify the decision forthwith and will give everyone concerned needed guidelines for the administration and interpretation of this somewhat opaque statute. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431816. Public record. Not legal advice.