Judicial FOIA Expansion Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 20, 2026
Bottom line
This bill significantly increases transparency for the federal judiciary by subjecting its administrative records to public information laws, aiming to enhance accountability but raising concerns about judicial independence and operational burden.
What it actually does
This bill expands the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act to the judicial branch, defining "courts of the United States" to include a wide range of judicial entities, but explicitly excluding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It specifies additional types of judicial administrative records that will be subject to disclosure, such as attorney disciplinary proceedings and judge performance reports, while also establishing new exemptions for ongoing cases and information not in the court's possession. The bill also mandates machine-readability for released information and authorizes $10 million for fiscal year 2027 to support implementation.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that extending FOIA to the judiciary is crucial for government transparency and accountability, ensuring that the third branch of government is not exempt from the same public scrutiny applied to the executive branch. They contend it will build public trust by allowing access to administrative records, disciplinary actions, and operational information, thereby shedding light on how courts function and how judges and staff are held accountable.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that applying FOIA to the judiciary could undermine judicial independence, create an undue administrative burden on courts, and potentially expose sensitive information that could compromise ongoing cases or the safety of judicial personnel. They may also contend that existing common law rights of access and internal judicial accountability mechanisms are sufficient.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward for those familiar with FOIA, allowing sufficient time for evaluation.
Section 2(a)(1)(A)
Redefining "Agency" for FOIA/Privacy Act
This provision amends the definition of "agency" in 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(B) to explicitly include "the courts of the United States" for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. This change reverses the traditional exclusion of the judicial branch from these transparency laws, making its administrative records subject to public access requests.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this amendment is essential for bringing the judiciary under the same transparency standards as the executive branch, promoting greater accountability and public trust in the third branch of government.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that this redefinition represents an overreach into judicial independence, potentially blurring the lines of separation of powers and creating an administrative burden on courts not designed for FOIA compliance.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between enhancing government transparency and preserving the traditional independence and operational distinctiveness of the judicial branch.
Section 2(a)(1)(D)
Scope of Judicial Branch Entities Covered
This section adds a new paragraph to 5 U.S.C. 551, providing a comprehensive definition of "court of the United States." It includes the Supreme Court, all federal appellate and district courts, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Federal Judicial Center, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, federal defender organizations, and entities providing security for judicial personnel. Crucially, it explicitly excludes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) from this definition.
Section 2(a)(2) (new 5 U.S.C. 552c(a)(1))
Mandated Disclosure of Specific Judicial Administrative Records
This new subsection lists eight specific categories of information that are explicitly subject to record requests concerning the courts of the United States. These include records of attorney disciplinary proceedings (excluding deliberations), complaints and investigations against judges or court personnel, meeting calendars and minutes of the Federal Judicial Conference, research from the Federal Judicial Center, completed jury selection forms, judge performance reports, technical audit plans for PACER, and annual reports to Congress.
Section 2(a)(2) (new 5 U.S.C. 552c(a)(2))
New Exemptions for Judicial Records
This subsection introduces two new exemptions specifically for records held by the courts of the United States, in addition to the existing exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). These new exemptions shield "any matter relating to an ongoing case" and "any information not in the possession of the courts of the United States" from FOIA disclosure.
Section 2(a)(2) (new 5 U.S.C. 552c(a)(3))
Machine-Readability Requirement for Judicial Records
This provision mandates that any information published or provided by a court of the United States under the expanded FOIA or Privacy Act must be machine-readable. This requirement aligns with broader federal efforts to make government data more accessible and usable for analysis, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502.
Section 2(c)
Authorization of Appropriations for Implementation
This section authorizes the appropriation of $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2027 to meet the requirements of the Act. This funding is specifically intended to support the implementation efforts, including the creation of a dedicated office within the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to manage the new FOIA and Privacy Act responsibilities.
The bill explicitly states that the definition of "court of the United States" for FOIA and Privacy Act purposes "does not include the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." This means the FISC remains exempt from these transparency requirements.
Section 2(a)(1)(D) (new 5 U.S.C. 551(15)(B))
Why it matters:While defining scope is standard legislative practice, the specific exclusion of a court known for its secrecy and national security functions is politically significant and could be seen as an attempt to avoid broader public debate on FISC transparency.
Case for: Proponents of the exclusion would argue that the highly sensitive nature of national security intelligence and the classified information handled by the FISC necessitate its continued exemption to protect national security operations, sources, and methods.
Case against: Transparency advocates and civil liberties groups would argue that the FISC's operations, particularly given its role in authorizing surveillance, require greater public oversight, and its exclusion perpetuates a lack of accountability for a powerful court.
Estimated impact: Maintains the current level of secrecy for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, preventing public access to its administrative records under FOIA and the Privacy Act.