City of Chicago v US Dept. of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (2005) 33 Media L. Rep.

2249 United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Facts of the Case: The city of Chicago submitted a request to the ATF for database information under the FOIA. The ATF complied with the request but left out a lot of information, saying that the requested information was protected under the FOIA exemptions for privacy and law enforcement purposes. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that appellant ATF was obliged by the FOIA to provide appellee city info from ATF databases pertaining to sales and tracing of firearms. The appellate court affirmed but because of pending legislation the court granted a rehearing. The pending legislation was passed in 2005 while the case was on appeal. The amendment did two things in this case; first, it deprived ATF of funding to act on requests for disclosure of the firearms trace database. Second, it states that all such data shall be immune from legal process and shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery in any civil action in a State or Federal court or in any administrative proceeding. Legal Issue(s): The 2005 rider deprives ATF of funding to act on requests for disclosure of the firearms trace database and the data assembled. The rider also adds the phrase and all such data shall be immune from legal process and shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery in any civil action in a State or Federal court. The city argues that the antecedent to the phrase such data is ambiguous. The City next questioned whether the masters retrieval of data is a form of legal process. The City maintains that the 2005 rider did not effect a change in the previous law. The remaining question is that the 2005 Act is intervening legislation enacted while this case was on appeal. The ATF does not see this as a problem. It contends that under the settled principle [**15] that a court is to apply the law in effect at the time the court rules. Courts Decision: The court vacated its prior opinions, reversed the district court, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the ATF Rationale: Congress intention in adding this language was to cut off access to the databases for any reason not related to law enforcement. The citys separation of powers argument depends on the erroneous premise that the 2005 rider did not change underlying substantive law. The courts conclusion to this argument was unnecessary to address the citys challenge because later decisions have made it clear that its prohibition does not take hold when Congress amends applicable law.

Implications: The funding restriction prevents the federal agency that collects the data from acting on a request for disclosure. Also, the requesting party has no judicial remedy, as the information is immune from legal process and not subject to subpoena or otherwise discoverable in a civil action. It demonstrates that our solution to the funding restriction in the prior riders is no longer tenable.