New York Court of Appeals Strikes Down Blanket FOIL Objections: Agencies Must Justify Redactions

For years, government agencies across New York—whether city, state, or local—have relied on blanket objections to deny Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests. Rather than conducting an actual review of the records being requested, many agencies simply claim that the documents are categorically exempt from disclosure. This practice leaves requesters in the dark, forcing them to either accept the agency’s refusal or go to court to fight for access.

The New York Court of Appeals just put an end to that practice. In Matter of New York Civil Liberties Union v. City of Rochester, the state’s highest court ruled that government agencies cannot simply reject entire categories of records by claiming they are exempt. Instead, agencies must review each document individually and provide a specific justification for withholding or redacting information.

This is a major ruling for government transparency, and it affects all agencies subject to FOIL—not just police departments. If an agency wants to redact or withhold a record, it now has to do the work of explaining why.

The Problem: Blanket Objections to FOIL Requests

The case arose after the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) filed a FOIL request for police disciplinary records from the City of Rochester. Instead of reviewing the records and determining what could be released, the city took a shortcut—it categorically refused to produce any records of unsubstantiated complaints, arguing that they were automatically exempt under the personal privacy exemption in FOIL.

This type of blanket objection is a common tactic used by agencies trying to avoid disclosing potentially embarrassing or politically sensitive records. Rather than going through the trouble of reviewing each document and determining what can be released, agencies frequently cite broad exemptions and refuse to produce anything.

The problem? That’s not how FOIL works.

FOIL is built on a presumption of disclosure—meaning all records are presumed to be public unless an agency can prove otherwise. And that proof must be specific. A government agency cannot simply declare that a category of records is exempt and refuse to turn them over. As long as the agency can redact the documents without “unreasonable difficulty” then they must do that.

The Court’s Ruling: Agencies Must Do the Work

The Court of Appeals was clear: Blanket objections violate FOIL. The law does not allow an agency to deny access to an entire group of records without conducting a proper review.

Instead, agencies must:
✅ Individually assess each document to determine what can and cannot be released.
✅ Justify any redactions with a specific explanation tied to a legal exemption.
✅ Disclose as much as possible, redacting only those portions of records that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy or fall under another narrow exemption.

This means that agencies can no longer rely on broad refusals to avoid transparency. If they want to withhold information, they must show their work.

The Court’s ruling reinforces what FOIL has always required: A government agency cannot withhold records just because it finds disclosure inconvenient or embarrassing. If an agency claims an exemption applies, it must justify every redaction, line by line, document by document.

Why This Decision Matters for FOIL Requesters

This ruling is a major win for anyone who uses FOIL to hold government agencies accountable. Whether you're a journalist, an advocate, or simply a concerned citizen, this case strengthens your ability to challenge FOIL denials.

Now, if an agency refuses to turn over records and cites a broad exemption, you have a clear legal precedent to push back. You can demand that the agency provide a document-by-document justification—and if they fail to do so, courts are now more likely to rule in favor of disclosure.

For agencies, the ruling is also a warning: Transparency is not optional. Government officials can no longer hide behind vague claims of confidentiality—they must engage in a real, substantive review before withholding public records.

What Should You Do If an Agency Issues a Blanket FOIL Denial?

If you’ve submitted a FOIL request and received a blanket denial or an overly broad redaction, you now have stronger legal grounds to fight back. Here’s what you should do:

1️⃣ Demand a specific explanation. If an agency refuses to release records, ask them to identify each redaction and provide a clear legal justification for withholding it.
2️⃣ Cite this case. Referencing Matter of New York Civil Liberties Union v. City of Rochester puts agencies on notice that courts have rejected blanket objections.
3️⃣ File an appeal. If the agency still refuses to comply, FOIL allows you to appeal their decision internally—and if necessary, take them to court.
4️⃣ Get legal help. Agencies often rely on FOIL requesters giving up. But if you challenge improper denials, courts are now more likely to side with transparency.

Need Help Fighting a FOIL Denial?

If you’ve been hit with a blanket FOIL objection, don’t let the agency get away with it. At William Grey Law Office PLLC, we specialize in FOIL litigation and government transparency cases. Whether you're seeking police records, government reports, or other public documents, we can help you challenge improper denials and fight for the public’s right to know.

📞 Contact us today to discuss your case and make sure government agencies comply with the law.