In 2004, four hurricanes hit Florida during one six-week period. In response, FEMA disbursed $1.2 billion in disaster assistance to more than 605,000 Florida residents. But when the media sought to obtain the names and addresses of federal aid recipients, FEMA refused and claimed releasing the information would be an invasion of privacy. In March 2005, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel filed a federal lawsuit to force the release of those names and addresses, plus details on FEMA aid recipients from 27 other natural disasters dating back to 1998. In June of 2007, a federal appeals court ruled that FEMA must release the addresses of aid recipients, finding that the public interest outweighed any privacy concerns.

The Blog spoke to Rachel Fugate, an attorney who represented the Sun-Sentinel in its case against FEMA.

Can you explain the significance of this ruling?

It's an extremely significant ruling. What the court had to do was balance the public interest in the release of the information against the privacy interest in disclosure, and there are very few cases, under the freedom of information context, that approve and allow for release of addresses to the public. The courts have found an inherent privacy interest in the person's name or address, and it takes a pretty substantial public interest to override that, and by and large, the vast majority of cases, the privacy interests wins. There isn't one [preceding] case where FEMA has had to disclose the addresses of claimants for federal disaster relief. So this was the first case of its kind to make its way into the courts and up at the appellate level. So I think for the Federal Courts to find such an overwhelming public interest that it outweighed the privacy interest, is extremely significant.

Was there any other way for newspapers like the Sun-Sentinel to have obtained the information they needed besides filing these FOIA requests?

No, none whatsoever, unless somebody just wanted to give it to them out of the goodness of their heart, which is highly unlikely [laughs]. No, really the newspaper's only way, besides a leak or an agency, is through the Freedom of Information Act, which can be complex, and cumbersome, and can take a long time

How do you determine when privacy interests outweigh public interests? How do you determine which factor outweighs the other?

It's an interesting question. There's no rule that you can apply to it.The court just looks at what could be gained through the release of the information. [In this case] you've got government investigations that [found] systemic failures, abuses, and wastes [at FEMA]. The Sun-Sentinel's initial investigation found a lot of the same thing. And the court said this is kind of the last piece of the puzzle. If you release this information, then the public is going to be able to fully evaluate FEMA's failures. Did the problems that occurred in Miami-Dade affect other areas in the state? Is FEMA rewarding federal taxpayer money to people that really did have damage? And the way to [figure that out] is to release the addresses where the damage was claimed. [Finding out whether] FEMA was "a steward of taxpayer money" was [found to be] an overwhelming public interest. I think they referred to it as "powerful and undeniable." And on the flip side, they found that the privacy interest actually to be fairly slight. FEMA had asserted some privacy interests, saying people might use [the information] for commercial solicitation or possible thefts. But the court actually looked at the real possibilities of theft and commercial solicitation and found them to be quite minimal.

You mentioned the government investigations ... Can you explain what those government investigations found?

The government investigations came on the heels of the Sun-Sentinel's reporting. They basically found that FEMA failed to train inspectors and didn't have controls in place. You know, they had inspectors who wouldn't even go to the location to confirm damage.

Were the newspapers upset that the court ruling did not require FEMA to provide the names of the aid recipients?

The Sun-Sentinel requested [access to the names] in the District Court, and the District Court found that we weren't entitled to it. And even though we thought we had a good reason for it, we really looked at the District Court opinion, and we looked at the real need for [names] and we made a decision not to appeal the decision. We made an informed decision from the onset not to continue seeking [names], just to try to get our judge from the Southern District affirmed on the addresses. The critical need was knowing the locations of claimed disaster damage.

Are there any cases similar to this one with some of the same implications for press freedom currently stirring about?

None that I know of presently, but I think given Hurricane Katrina and some of the other recent disasters, that this opinion may lead to more. I think a lot of newspapers were waiting to see what would happen with this case. To see if this is the type of information that they might be able to get. I think it might open up a door for a lot of news entities to make some requests for this type of information in their reporting.

Any final comments?

I just think what the Sun-Sentinel did in its reporting -- sticking with this case through three years of litigation -- is extremely admirable. And I think the public really has the need to know this information. Now they have the final bit of information that allows them to do their job.