Grand Rapids FOIA Case Reaches State Supreme Court

The Michigan Supreme Court is being asked to weigh in on a lawsuit against the city of Grand Rapids over its response time to a public records request. The American Civil Liberties Union petitioned the state's highest court in a case involving a Freedom of Information Act request that the city took over a year to fulfill.

The dispute centers on whether Michigan law requires public bodies to have a specific deadline for completing FOIA requests. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in December 2025 that state law does not mandate a timeframe in which a public body must disclose records.

The case stemmed from a FOIA request that the ACLU submitted to the Grand Rapids Police Department in December 2021 over its use of drones. The city took over a year to fulfill the request, so the ACLU submitted a second FOIA request in March 2023 seeking information about why the city took so long to fulfill the first request.

The city responded a month later, saying that the second FOIA request would take 2 hours and 15 minutes to process, but that it could take the city 8 to 10 months to provide the records due to a backlog of FOIA requests at the time.

The ACLU filed a FOIA complaint over the delay in the records request. The city ended up fulfilling the ACLU's request 13 months later, in June 2024.

Court of Appeals Rejects ACLU Arguments

In its December 11, 2025 decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court's ruling that the city did not violate Michigan law. The judges wrote that state law does not address the time within which a public body must fulfill a FOIA request.

"Plaintiffs have not shown that the circuit court erred by granting summary disposition in favor of the defendant," the judges wrote in the appeals court decision.

The ACLU argued that FOIA requires public bodies to fulfill requests within a reasonable amount of time. The court declined to adopt the ACLU's proposed rebuttable presumption that a public body must begin fulfilling a request within 30 days, or a firm deadline of 90 days by which record productions must be complete.

"We will continue to monitor the status of the appeal," according to Clark Hill PLC, a legal firm that commented on the case.

City Maintains It Is Complying With Law

A city spokesperson applauded the appeals court's decision.

"Yesterday's decision by the Court of Appeals affirms that the City is making a genuine effort to respond to the growing number of Freedom of Information Act requests within the bounds of the law," the city said in an emailed statement to MLive.

"FOIA fulfillment continues to be a City priority, and the City strives to fulfill those requests in a manner that is equitable to all those who make them. It remains committed to finding opportunities that would allow fulfillment of FOIA requests as quickly and as consistently as possible."

What FOIA Actually Requires

Michigan law states that "A public body shall furnish a requesting person a reasonable opportunity for inspection and examination of its public records, and shall furnish reasonable facilities for making memoranda or abstracts from the public records during the usual business hours."

The Michigan Court of Appeals determined this provision applies to the time allowed for personal inspection, examination, and copying of records in an environment provided by the public body. The ACLU did not request to inspect records in such an environment; instead, they requested the City to provide the records.

The only provision addressing any timeframe for fulfilling FOIA requests is when a public body requires a good-faith deposit for record requests exceeding 50 dollars. Under these circumstances, FOIA requires the public body to provide a "best efforts estimate" of the timeframe it will take to comply with the law in providing the public records to the requestor.

The Court found that the City complied with this requirement when it estimated the request would take 8 to 10 months to fulfill.

What Comes Next

The ACLU acknowledged that FOIA contains no specific deadline in which a public body must fulfill a records request. Instead, the ACLU argued that when read as a whole and in light of FOIA's purpose of prompt disclosure, the law requires public bodies to fulfill requests within a reasonable time.

The Court rejected the ACLU's arguments and held that FOIA imposes no strict deadline for public bodies to fulfill a request. The court also rejected the ACLU's request to adopt either the 30-day rebuttable presumption or the 90-day firm deadline because imposing these deadlines added language to FOIA that the Legislature did not see fit to impose.

The ACLU filed an appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal. The case is now pending before the state's highest court.

While FOIA contains express deadlines for a public body to respond to a FOIA request, there is no definitive timeframe in which a public body must fulfill a records request. Nonetheless, requests must be filled within a reasonable amount of time. Requesters can still challenge a public body's delay in fulfilling a request because FOIA provides a remedy if a public body has "arbitrarily and capriciously violated FOIA by refusal or delay in disclosing or providing public records."

However, in this case, the ACLU failed to argue that the 13-month waiting period was arbitrary and capricious.

[Sources: MLive.com, Michigan Advance, Clark Hill PLC, Mika Meyers]