Issue No. 11

L26-0024

Chairman Phil Mendelson introduced B26-0200, the Open Meetings Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2025, enacted on June 26, 2025, without the  Mayor's Signature, as Act Number A26-0086. It has now received Law Number L26-0024, effective on Aug 16, 2025, and expiring on Mar 29, 2026 .

The Act “amend[s], on an emergency basis, due to congressional review, the Open Meetings Act to clarify the definition of meeting, to provide for a public body’s ability to be briefed about potential terrorist or public health threats so long as no official action is taken, to exempt from the act meetings between the Council and the Mayor provided that no official action is taken at such meetings, and to provide that a meeting shall be deemed open to the public if the public body takes steps reasonably calculated to allow the public to view or hear the meeting while the meeting is taking place, or, if doing so is not technologically feasible, as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable.”

L26-0038

Councilmember Christina Henderson’s bill B26-62—the Board of Trustees Training Amendment Act of 2025—became law  on September 19, 2025.  Law L26-0038, effective from September 10, 2025, requires  members of a Board of Trustees of a public charter school to complete training programs on best practices for school board governance, including the Open Meetings Act.

Law L26-0037

On June 24, 2025, the Council of the District of Columbia Committee of the Whole filed its Committee Report, and on July 1, 2025, Chairman Mendelson introduced an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, which passed on Final Reading unanimously. The Act became law on Sep 19, 2025; Law L26-0037, effective from September 10, 2025.This law codifies agency deference, and is largely in response to the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright.

Act 26-0179

Councilmember Charles Allen’s bill,  the “Youth Advisory Council on Climate Change and Environmental Conservation Establishment Act of 2025,” passed The Council on final reading, was signed by the Mayor on Nov 10, 2025, transmitted to Congress on Nov 17, 2025, and enacted on Nov 21, 2025, as Act A26-0179. The Act creates a new public body “to provide an organized youth perspective on various issues that impact climate change,” subject to the Open Meetings Act, conducting its business according to Roberts Rules of Order, and calls for the provision of “[i]nformational  material  provided  by the Office  of  Open  Government concerning the duties of Youth Climate Council members.”

A26-0148

On May 27, 2025, Chairman Mendelson introduced B26-0265, the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Support Act of 2025. The bill passed unanimously on first reading, and by a vote of 10-2 on final reading on July 28, 2025. It was signed by the Mayor on September 4, 2025, receiving Act Number A26-0148, and was transmitted to Congress on September 10, 2025. The projected law date is December 17, 2025.

The Act provides authority for implementing the District’s FY26 budget, and includes the “Freedom of Information Clarification Emergency Amendment Act of 2025.” This emergency amendment of DC FOIA was introduced to clarify the scope of exemptions and created a new exemption for particular data or records that the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) and District of Columbia Sentencing Commission receive from a “court, federal agency, or federally established agency.”

FOIA & D.C. FOIA Litigation Update...

America First Legal Foundation v. Jamieson Greer (Case No. 24-5168 (U.S. App. D.C.))

This was a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. in which the America First Legal Foundation (AFL) brought suit to compel the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to investigate whether a federal agency arbitrarily denied AFL’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The district court dismissed America First Legal Foundation’s  claims on the merits.

The Court of Appeals concluded that AFL lacks Article III standing to pursue the claims. The Court found that an organization lacks standing to bring suit against the OSC to compel it to investigate the Department of Justice’s FOIA policy. The deprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation is insufficient to confer Article III standing. The OSC’s failure to investigate the DOJ for its failure to turn over requested documents is not a concrete injury since any causal connection between the failure to conduct the investigation and the failure to comply with the document request is speculative and Appellant has not shown how a favorable judgment would lead to redress. Even if 5 U.S.C. § 1216 requires OSC to investigate FOIA violations, it does not create any entitlement for the requesting parties to receive information. The case was vacated and remanded.

Campaign for Accountability v. United States Department of Justice (Case No. 24-5163 (U.S. App. D.C.))

This is a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. found that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not require the government to disclose Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions that resolve interagency disputes, concern the adjudication or determination of private rights, or interpret non-discretionary legal duties. An informational injury is sufficient to establish standing for claims brought under the reading-room provision of FOIA. OLC legal opinions related to the adjudication of private rights, the interpretation of non-discretionary duties, or the resolution of interagency disputes are not “working law” subject to disclosure under FOIA’s reading-room provision. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

The Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) (D.C. Official Code §§ 2-571—2-579) is the District’s primary transparency law regarding the “public business” when conducted by a “public body” (which includes: “any government council, including the Council of the District of Columbia, board, commission, or similar entity…a board of directors of an instrumentality, a board which supervises or controls an agency, the board of trustees of a public charter school, or an advisory body that takes official action by the vote of its members convened for such purpose;” but does not include: District agencies or instrumentalities; the District of Columbia courts; the Mayor’s cabinet; the professional or administrative staff of public bodies when they meet outside the presence of a quorum of those bodies; ANCs (notwithstanding D.C. Official Code § 1-309.11; or the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC).

The key element of the OMA is a meeting. For OMA purposes, a “[m]eeting” means any gathering of a quorum of the members of a public body, including hearings and roundtables, whether formal or informal, regular, special, or emergency, at which the members consider, conduct, or advise on public business, including gathering information, taking testimony, discussing, deliberating, recommending, and voting, regardless of whether held in person, by telephone, electronically, or by other means of communication”(D.C. Official Code § 2-574(1)(A)). However, “the term 'meeting' shall not include…a chance or social gathering; provided, that it is not held to avoid the provisions of this paragraph; or…a press conference.” (D.C. Official Code § 2-574(1)(A)).

Determining whether a “public body” is conducting a “meeting” is a three-part analysis:

(1) is the group a “public body”?;

(2) is a quorum (generally one person more than half of the full body, unless otherwise specified) of the “public body” (not including staff or the public) present?;

(3) is “public business” (according to) being conducted?

Once these three threshold questions are positively established, a gathering is most likely a “meeting” per the OMA, as long as the public business meets any of the following definitions: “consider, conduct, or advise on public business, including gathering information, taking testimony, discussing, deliberating, recommending, and voting…”

OMA notice and record requirements are separate issues addressed elsewhere in the Act.

SUNSHINE MOMENT

The Commission on the Arts and Humanities (CAH) is an independent agency established to evaluate and initiate action on matters regarding the development and improvement of activities in the arts and humanities within the District of Columbia. CAH annually prepares a plan of artistic projects and productions. They make and issue grants for these artistic projects and productions.  The grants are awarded to individuals and organizations based in the District to provide funds for educational activities, teaching artists, classroom educators, field trip experiences, parades, festivals, celebrations, and outreach services for youth. The Commission also loans works of art to museums, universities, and companies either at no cost or at prices set by the commission. CAH exists to encourage programs and the development of programs promoting progress in the arts and humanities in the District. The members of the Commission are District residents appointed by the Mayor, who have displayed interest or ability in the arts and humanities or have been active in the furtherance of its mission. Each Commissioner is appointed to a three-year term and serves without compensation. Visit the District of Columbia Commission on the Arts and Humanities' website to learn more.