The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the Social Security Administration (SSA) in a case involving a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The court ruled that the SSA can charge fees for processing requests, even if the agency doesn’t meet the FOIA’s deadlines, as long as the request isn’t directly related to the administration of the SSA’s programs.
The Case: Shapiro v. U.S. Social Security Administration
This case began when Robert E. Shapiro, a medical doctor specializing in neurology, submitted a FOIA request to the SSA. Shapiro sought documents related to how the SSA assesses disability claims for migraines and other headache disorders. He was particularly interested in the agency’s decision-making process for including these conditions in its Listing of Impairments, which is used to evaluate disability claims.
The SSA’s Response and the Fee Dispute
The SSA responded to Shapiro’s request more than six months after he submitted it. The agency informed Shapiro that his request was considered “unusual” and “non-program related” and that he would need to pay $2,908 in processing fees. Shapiro initially paid the fee but later refused to pay, arguing that the SSA had missed the deadline for responding to his FOIA request. Under FOIA, agencies can’t charge fees if they don’t respond within the statutory timeframe.
The District Court’s Ruling
The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont initially sided with Shapiro. The court held that FOIA’s fee-preclusion provision (which prevents fees for untimely responses) took precedence over the SSA’s cost-reimbursement provision. This provision, found in 42 U.S.C. § 1306(c), allows the SSA to charge the “full cost” of responding to FOIA requests that are “not directly related to the administration” of its programs. The district court ordered the SSA to refund the fees and also awarded Shapiro attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Second Circuit’s Decision
On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The appeals court found that the SSA’s cost-reimbursement provision, § 1306(c), was clear and unambiguous. The court emphasized the “notwithstanding” clause in the provision, which states that it applies “notwithstanding” FOIA. This, according to the court, meant that the cost-reimbursement provision takes precedence over the FOIA’s fee-preclusion provision.
The “Notwithstanding” Clause Explained
The Second Circuit explained that the word “notwithstanding” is a strong indicator of Congress’s intent. It means that the provision with the “notwithstanding” clause prevails, even if it conflicts with other laws. The court cited Supreme Court precedent, noting that the use of “notwithstanding” clearly signals which provision should take precedence in a conflict.
Is the Request Program-Related?
Shapiro argued that even if the SSA’s cost-reimbursement provision applied, his request should be exempt because it was “directly related to the administration” of SSA programs. He contended that the information he sought would educate the public and help people understand how to pursue disability benefits for migraine and headache disorders.
The court disagreed, stating that Shapiro’s request was not directly related to the administration of SSA programs. The court noted that Shapiro’s request was for general educational purposes and scholarly research, not for pursuing benefits for himself or his employer. The court determined that the SSA was within its rights to charge the processing fee.
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Reversed
Because the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision on the fee refund, it also vacated the order awarding Shapiro attorneys’ fees and costs. The court reasoned that since Shapiro did not “substantially prevail” on his case, particularly since the information was not released, the award of fees was not justified.
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling clarifies the SSA’s ability to charge fees for FOIA requests, even if the agency doesn’t meet the FOIA’s deadlines, as long as the request isn’t directly related to the administration of the SSA’s programs. It highlights the importance of the “notwithstanding” clause in statutory interpretation and reinforces the SSA’s authority to manage its resources by charging for the processing of certain FOIA requests.