Often during the course of litigation, an agency will be asked to produce Privacy Act-protected information pursuant to a discovery request by an opposing party. An agency in receipt of such a request must object on the ground that the Privacy Act prohibits disclosure.
See Golez v.
Accordingly, the Privacy Act. United States , No. Although courts have unanimously held that the Privacy Act does not create a discovery privilege, see Laxalt v. McClatchy , F. Norton , F. May 13, ; Forrest v. United States , 84 F. Baldrige v. Shapiro , U. The most appropriate method of disclosure in this situation is pursuant to a subsection b 11 court order.
See generally Doe v. DiGenova , F. Stephens , F. See Laxalt , F. Alford v. Todco , No. CIVE, slip op. Seaboard Coast Line R. On the other hand, when an agency wishes to make an affirmative disclosure of information during litigation it may either rely on a routine use permitting such disclosure or seek a court order. Because the Privacy Act does not constitute a statutory privilege, agencies need not worry about breaching or waiving such a privilege when disclosing information pursuant to subsections b 3 or b Mangino v.
Thomson , No. See also Vaughan v. For further discussions of disclosures during litigation, see the discussions of subsections b 3 and b 11 , below. Weatherspoon v. Hill , No. Stokes v. SSA , F. Additionally, although it may seem self-evident, the fact pattern in one case caused a court to explicitly hold that an agency cannot be sued for disclosures that an individual makes himself. Abernethy v. See Taylor v. Orr , No. Milton v. VA , No. Pellerin v. Army Air Force Exchange Serv. See also Perry v. For other cases in which courts have approved disclosures made pursuant to consent, see Elnashar v.
Rogers , No. DOT , No. Tarullo v. Contract Audit Agency , F. Yet, the Plaintiff supplied his SSN. As a result, he voluntarily disclosed his SSN. For cases in which courts have found consent clauses to be inadequate to authorize disclosure, see Schmidt v. Air Force , No. ATF , F. GSA , F. Taylor , No. In light of the D. Note that with the exception of disclosures under subsection b 2 see the discussion below , disclosures under the following exceptions are permissive, not mandatory. See Cong. Marshals Serv. Ashcroft , No. Sutera v. TSA , F. EPA , No. Intra-agency disclosures for improper purposes will not be condoned.
GSA , No. Napolitano , F. DOD , F. Snow , F. Reno , No. Berry v. Henderson , No. Potter , F. Johnson , No. Reno , F. USPS , 79 F. Naval Investigative Serv. Harrington , F. Winston , F. IRS , No. Marsh , F. Alexander , F. Middendorf , F. Mabus , No. Raty , No. Utah Aug. State , F. SBA , No. Principi , F. McCready v. Nicholson , F.
Herman , F. Hanna v. Chao , No. Tenet , F. May 12, ; Porter v. CV, slip op. Harry v.
- Collected Works of F. Scott Fitzgerald (45 Short Stories and Novels).
- Cleans Up Nicely: A Novel.
- You are here!
USPS , 60 F. Frank , No. Reilly , F. Reilly , No. Energy , No. Cacho v. DOD , 92 M. See Mount v. TH C, slip op. Gill v. Another court, however, has held to the contrary on facts nearly identical to those in Hulett. Taylor v. The point of this exception is that the Privacy Act never prohibits a disclosure that the Freedom of Information Act actually requires.
See News-Press v. DHS , F. Customs Serv. See also Sikes v. DOJ, F.
Western Theories of Justice
This would be a required subsection b 2 disclosure. FLRA , U. FLRA , F. HHS , No. July 8, ; Kassel v. HEW , F. Newspapers, Inc. In DOJ v. In light of Reporters Comm. Commerce , F. Veneman , F. BIA , No. Idaho Mar. X, No. As a result of Reporters Comm. Treasury , F. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit significantly limited the utility of subsection b 2 in Bartel v.
In Bartel , the D. Circuit held that subsection b 2 cannot be invoked unless an agency actually has a FOIA request in hand. In one case prior to Bartel , it similarly had been held that subsection b 2 was not available as a defense for the disclosure of information in the absence of a FOIA request. Zeller v. Other courts have not taken the approach articulated by the D. Circuit in Bartel. See Cochran v. However, because the D. V, No. OMB Guidelines, 52 Fed. In Tripp v. In Chang v. Id ; see also Russo , F.
At least one pre- Bartel case also appears to support this idea. Owens v. But see Zeller v. The routine use exception, because of its potential breadth, is one of the most controversial provisions in the Act. The trend in recent cases is toward a narrower construction of the exception. The White House directed the Office of Management and Budget to issue additional guidance regarding the routine use exception in an executive memorandum on privacy sent to the heads of executive departments and agencies in XIX, No.
DOD , No. Shayesteh v. Covert v. EDCV , slip op. Stafford v.
- BUY ONLINE!
- Colony in the Core: The Maker Manuscript.
- More Articles.
- Browse by Subject;
- Máscaras (Serie Mario Conde) (Spanish Edition)?
- About Personal Justice 2 (8 book series) by Kathleen Brown (Spyder) - Freado.
See also Minshew v. Donley , F. Thompson v. Indeed, it is possible for a routine use to be deemed facially invalid if it fails to satisfy subsection e 4 D — i. Krohn v. Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Fla. Supply Ctr. In other words, a particular disclosure is unauthorized if it does not fall within the clear terms of the routine use. Walters , F. DHS , No. Ohio Feb. FAA , No. Bechhoefer v. DEA , U. CS, slip op. See Makowski v. United States , 27 F. Stafford , F. But see NLRB v. Truesdale , F. Quinn v. Whatever the merit of the decisions of prior courts that have held.
Pontecorvo v. These kinds of routine uses have been criticized on the ground that they circumvent the more restrictive requirements of subsection b 7. Yet, they have never been successfully challenged on that basis. Indeed, courts have routinely upheld disclosures made pursuant to such routine uses. Pavlock , F. Grimes , No. In Covert v. Covert , F. Prior to Covert , no other court had ever so held.
See the additional discussion under subsection e 3 , below. In Doe v. In light of Doe v. Stephens , the decision in Fields v. Leuver , No.
SparkNotes: The Republic: Overview
SA, slip op. In Krohn v. See Jackson v. Britt , F. Numerous types of information sharing between agencies and with organizations or individuals have been upheld as valid routine uses. IRS , B. Iowa ; Mount v. Judicial Conference of the United States , F. Miller , F. Collins , F. Mueller , No. Rice , No.
OPM , F. Labor , F. June 12, ; Contursi v. May 12, ; Magee v. Runyon , 60 F. Smith , No. CR, slip op. July 25, discussing disclosure of rap sheet to local police department ; Ely v. Sussman v. Four courts have required an agency to invoke its routine use to permit disclosure to unions of names of employees on the theory that refusal to so disclose was an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act.
See NLRB v. NLRB v. Apart from the FOIA see subsection b 2 and the Debt Collection Act see subsection b 12 , the Privacy Act makes no provision for any nonconsensual disclosures that are provided for by other statutes. I now am the sole owner of the copyright; Moody relinquished their rights. Amos has much to say about oppression and the plight of the poor in Israel, so it is only natural that his book has become a focal point for discussions about social justice.
For Amos, justice among people must begin with the Lord himself. The Lord expects justice first of all because he has created mankind on the earth. He can expect certain standards of conduct to be upheld by all nations esp. He has appointed each nation to its own sphere , though he has reserved a place of special honor for his people Israel Having formed the nations of the earth, he also has the absolute right to judge them ; ; ; , 4; The figure of God as judge dominates the book of Amos, though the Lord is not viewed as a judge without mercy.
At the very core of the message, the Lord holds out hope for any who will forsake evil and follow the good he desires , 6, He sends his prophets and his punishments in an effort to stimulate repentance ; In the end he will restore the former glory of the nation and even magnify it The justice of God may demand judgment for wrongdoing, but his mercy searches for every conceivable way to bring about a stay of execution.
Then, too, the transgressions that require judgment are nearly entirely comprised of acts of oppression. It is hard to read the book of Amos and not conclude that the Lord is deeply moved when one nation deals cruelly with another, or when the weak and helpless in society are crushed by the powerful. Nowhere in Amos does the Lord ever make reference to poverty as the fault of the poor. Proverbs often teaches about the importance of industry and wisdom in making a man wealthy or poor e.
This is not a fundamental disagreement between the wisdom and prophetic perspectives on the causes of poverty;  it only illustrates two complementary ways of looking at the problem. Amos desires only to uncover the evil that leads some to impoverish others for their own gain. Why is it evil? The Lord never deals with his creatures in that way; therefore such behavior is offensive to him. If the Lord shows compassion for the widow and the afflicted, he does not expect any less from his own people.
He presents his listeners with concrete images of those who tamper with scales , violate the slave girl who should be treated like a member of the family , or make exorbitant demands that cannot be met ; The individual merchants and wealthy landowners are dishonest and greedy for more money and power. If they would turn back to the Law of the Lord and meet his requirements, they would be righteous and merciful in imitation of him. However, one must also keep in mind the social setting in which Amos operated.
Amos was particularly concerned because he could see the social system set up by the Lord disintegrating. The land tenure system provided at least a means for each individual to participate in the social process , but Amos saw instead a rapidly expanding social class of poor people.