The Department of Justice last week published newly updated regulations on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, with several notable changes made in response to public comments.
Fifteen sets of comments were submitted by individual members of the public or public interest organizations after the Department released its draft FOIA regulations in 2011. In a lengthy Federal Register notice on April 3, the Department addressed all of the comments, and actually adopted a number of the changes recommended by public commenters.
Among the changes that were approved:
* The revised regulations explicitly include news organizations that operate solely on the Internet as “representatives of the news media,” making them exempt from search fees.
* “The revised fee schedule includes a decrease in duplication fees due to advances in technology.”
* The revision adds language specifying that “in responding to requests for classified information, the component [of DoJ to which the request is addressed] must determine whether the information remains currently and properly classified.”
Some other new provisions should make it easier to use the FOIA, including a procedure for consulting with the Department’s FOIA Public Liaison in advance of making a request. The revised regs also incorporate a statement of policy that would “encourage discretionary releases of information whenever disclosure would not foreseeably harm an interest protected by a FOIA exemption.”
It nevertheless remains true that in order to take full advantage of the tools provided by the Freedom of Information Act, it is often necessary for requesters to litigate over information that is withheld or denied.
According to The FOIA Project, there were 422 Freedom of Information Act lawsuits filed in federal district court last year, up from 372 the year before and 342 the year before that.
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.