Questions disguised as FOIA requests

Question

I was reading an opinion in HUDGINS V. I.R.S., (D.D.C. 1985) regarding the ruling that the government is not required to answer "questions disguised as FOIA requests."

https://casetext.com/case/hudgins-v-irs

I think this view is entirely wrong. In my view, it is not the fact that a FOIA request appears to be a question which disqualifies the FOIA request. The only thing that can disqualify a FOIA request is the fact that "records" are not "reasonably described."

I am currently requesting from my state attorney general's office the "laws which are being used to justify X actions by the executive."

While it is true that this could be rephrased as a question, it does not fail to 1) "reasonably describe" 2) "records". Since I am asking the attorney general's office, they are either using laws to justify a course of action or they are not. If they are, then they know what records I mean. That is reasonably describing. And of course, laws are records. If they are not using laws to justify their actions, then of course they do not know what I mean. In that case, the law provides that they should say so.

Either way, you see the trap here, do you not?

The question: Based upon more than just Hudgins, is there anything to support my FOIA/FOAA(Maine) request as being valid?

My jurisdiction is Maine

Answer 1

I believe that you have misinterpreted the case, not least because the Hudgins v I.R.S case involves this only peripherally. The original case Diviaio v Kelly was dealing with a request for the number of photographs taken of the plaintiff and if these had been disseminated outside the CIA. This is in no way shape or form a request for records (the records were found to be legitimately exempt).

I see no problem in your FOI request. In fact, I can foresee the response:

These, http://www.maine.gov/legis/ros/meconlaw.htm, are the laws we use to justify these actions.

In a common law jurisdiction, a person (including the government) does not have to prove they are abiding by the law. The onus is on you to prove they aren't; they do not have to help you make your case.