I was reading an opinion in HUDGINS V. I.R.S., (D.D.C. 1985) regarding the ruling that the government is not required to answer "questions disguised as FOIA requests."
I think this view is entirely wrong. In my view, it is not the fact that a FOIA request appears to be a question which disqualifies the FOIA request. The only thing that can disqualify a FOIA request is the fact that "records" are not "reasonably described."
I am currently requesting from my state attorney general's office the "laws which are being used to justify X actions by the executive."
While it is true that this could be rephrased as a question, it does not fail to 1) "reasonably describe" 2) "records". Since I am asking the attorney general's office, they are either using laws to justify a course of action or they are not. If they are, then they know what records I mean. That is reasonably describing. And of course, laws are records. If they are not using laws to justify their actions, then of course they do not know what I mean. In that case, the law provides that they should say so.
Either way, you see the trap here, do you not?
The question: Based upon more than just Hudgins, is there anything to support my FOIA/FOAA(Maine) request as being valid?
My jurisdiction is Maine