信息自由:秘密法与最终性

Q3 Environmental Science
A. Gershonowitz, Brian T. Kennedy
{"title":"信息自由:秘密法与最终性","authors":"A. Gershonowitz, Brian T. Kennedy","doi":"10.1080/10406026.2021.1981681","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The recent Supreme Court decision in Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club presents a conflict between the public’s right to know federal agency policies and a federal agency’s interest in protecting its deliberative materials from public review. The Sierra Club claimed that the Fish and Wildlife Service was violating the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to provide biological opinions – a required analysis of the potential impact of regulations on endangered species – by marking them draft and never producing a final opinion that would be publicly available. This article analyzes the decision and explains why the agency controls the decision as to what is publicly available. It is not that the agency interest in privacy is more important than the public’s right to know; the rule is that as long as the agency is deliberating, there is not final policy to make public.","PeriodicalId":11761,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Claims Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Freedom of Information: Secret Law versus Finality\",\"authors\":\"A. Gershonowitz, Brian T. Kennedy\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10406026.2021.1981681\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The recent Supreme Court decision in Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club presents a conflict between the public’s right to know federal agency policies and a federal agency’s interest in protecting its deliberative materials from public review. The Sierra Club claimed that the Fish and Wildlife Service was violating the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to provide biological opinions – a required analysis of the potential impact of regulations on endangered species – by marking them draft and never producing a final opinion that would be publicly available. This article analyzes the decision and explains why the agency controls the decision as to what is publicly available. It is not that the agency interest in privacy is more important than the public’s right to know; the rule is that as long as the agency is deliberating, there is not final policy to make public.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11761,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Claims Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Claims Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10406026.2021.1981681\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Environmental Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Claims Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10406026.2021.1981681","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,美国最高法院在“鱼类和野生动物管理局诉塞拉俱乐部”一案中作出的判决,体现了公众了解联邦机构政策的权利与联邦机构保护其审议材料不受公众审查的利益之间的冲突。塞拉俱乐部声称,鱼类和野生动物管理局违反了《信息自由法》,因为他们拒绝提供生物学上的意见——一项对濒危物种法规潜在影响的必要分析——并将其标记为草案,却从未提出最终的意见供公众查阅。本文分析了这一决定,并解释了为什么该机构控制着公开可用信息的决定。这并不是说机构对隐私的兴趣比公众的知情权更重要;规则是,只要该机构在审议,就没有最终的政策要公布。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Freedom of Information: Secret Law versus Finality
Abstract The recent Supreme Court decision in Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club presents a conflict between the public’s right to know federal agency policies and a federal agency’s interest in protecting its deliberative materials from public review. The Sierra Club claimed that the Fish and Wildlife Service was violating the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to provide biological opinions – a required analysis of the potential impact of regulations on endangered species – by marking them draft and never producing a final opinion that would be publicly available. This article analyzes the decision and explains why the agency controls the decision as to what is publicly available. It is not that the agency interest in privacy is more important than the public’s right to know; the rule is that as long as the agency is deliberating, there is not final policy to make public.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Claims Journal
Environmental Claims Journal Environmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Environmental Claims Journal is a quarterly journal that focuses on the many types of claims and liabilities that result from environmental exposures. The ECJ considers environmental claims under older business insurance policies, coverage and claims under more recent environmental insurance policies, as well as toxic tort claims. Exposures and claims from all environmental media are considered: air, drinking water, groundwater, soil, chemicals in commerce and naturally occurring chemicals. The journal also considers the laws, regulations, and case law that form the basis for claims. The journal would be of interest to environmental and insurance attorneys, insurance professionals, claims professionals, and environmental consultants.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信