Maryland Residents File Suit Challenging Public Information Law “Frivolous and Vexatious” Provisions

Two Maryland residents, Justin Holder and Shaun Porter, have filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Washington County, Maryland, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the State of Maryland. The plaintiffs argue that a provision in Maryland’s Public Information Act (MPIA), specifically MD General Provisions Code § 4-1A-04(b), is unconstitutional and should be invalidated. The provision allows the Maryland Public Information Act Compliance Board (PIACB) to label certain requests for public records as “frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith” and authorize custodians to ignore or modify such requests.

Holder and Porter, known for their frequent and critical use of MPIA to obtain government records as well as Porter’s disruptive conduct at County Commissioner meetings and Holder’s RICO accusations against multiple government agencies, allege that the provision unfairly targets their efforts to uncover information and report on public controversies. They claim that the provision, enacted through House Bill 183, permits the State, through the Attorney General’s office, to arbitrarily block their requests and deny them their rights to inspect public records without due process. The plaintiffs contend that the law allows state officials to suppress public scrutiny by selectively applying this authority against individuals critical of the government.

The complaint emphasizes that the plaintiffs did not receive a hearing or opportunity to cross-examine witnesses before their rights were curtailed. They argue that this lack of procedural safeguards violates Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which guarantees due process and equal protection under the law. Holder and Porter assert that the law gives the state unchecked power to deny access to public records and silence voices that seek to expose governmental actions.

In their filing, Holder and Porter are seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the enforcement of MD General Provisions Code § 4-1A-04(b) while the case proceeds. They also seek a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the State from continuing to enforce the provision, arguing that allowing it to remain in effect will cause them immediate and irreparable harm. The plaintiffs claim that without the court’s intervention, they will be unable to continue their work exposing public controversies and informing public debate.

The plaintiffs argue that the balance of factors in this case supports granting their request for an injunction, emphasizing their likelihood of success on the merits and the public interest in maintaining open government. They also requested that the court waive any bond requirement typically associated with such injunctions. The lawsuit highlights concerns that the legislation sets a dangerous precedent by enabling the State to selectively suppress public information and stifle government accountability.

Article by multiple RFHC contributors, based upon information from the court filing in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Washington County.

Associated documents for this story are available in our Public Information Archive.

---