Court Ruling: Iowa Department of Revenue Violated Iowa’s Open Records Law and Iowa Public Record Board Rubber Stamped the Violation

In August of 2025, I wrote a blog titled “Iowa Open Records Law: Hot Tip for Government Agencies that Want to Keep Secret their Activities from the Public” in which I explained the Iowa Public Information Board’s (“IPIB”) ruling that would have gutted the Iowa’s Open Record’s Law in Iowa Code Chapter 22.  Luckily, Iowa’s Open Records Law remains intact as a result of a recent court ruling rejecting IPIB’s “rubber stamping” of the Iowa Department of Revenue’s (“Department”) refusal to explain the basis for withholding over 4,000 public records.

Brief Background

A public requester sought public records from the Department. In response, the Department identified nearly 4,200 public records but claimed more than 4,000 were excepted from public disclosure under three exceptions from public disclosure in chapter 22.  The public requester then asked the Department to provide details regarding each public record withheld so that the requester could evaluate whether the exception claimed actually applied to the public record. The Department refused to provide any details, stating “the Department is declining to provide a privilege log base on law and advice.” 

The public requester then filed a complaint with IPIB in which IPIB “rubber stamped” the Department’s decision. In doing so, IPIB approved the Department’s just “take our word for it . . . now go away” approach.  

The public requester then appealed IPIB’s decision to district court. 

District Court’s Opinion

At issue in the case before the Polk County District Court was whether IPIB erred in finding that the Department was not required to provide the public requester “information showing exceptions from public disclosure asserted by the Department really applied to the withheld” public records. 

The court had no issues concluding that the Department violated Chapter 22 by refusing to provide the public requester with an explanation for withholding each of the 4,000 public records.  Indeed, court pointed to the Department’s own administrative rules as basis for the Department’s violation of Chapter 22.  Citing Iowa Admin. Code r. 701—7.7, the court noted that the Department “cannot meet their burden of justifying reliance on a [reason for non disclosure] ‘by mere conclusory statements or allegations’” which is exactly what the Department sought to do in this case.   The court found the Department’s actions to violate Chapter 22 and that the position is “irrational, illogical and wholly unjustifiable.” The court went on to state:

The court also found that IPIB rubber stamping the Department’s position of allowing government agencies to merely claim an exception from public disclosure without requiring proof that the exception from public disclosure actually applies to the public records “flies completely in the face of the long-recognized purpose of Chapter 22 (as well as IPIB’s very raison d’etre) and, as such, is irrational, illogical and wholly unjustifiable.” 

Conclusion

So, what should public requesters expect from government agencies that claim an exception from public disclosure? The court reiterated the same-ol’ well-settled requirements Iowa courts have required for quite some time (and that the Department and IPIB ignored) and required the Department:

*RFND stands for “Reason For Not Disclosing.” 

The purpose of these seven pieces of information was to provide the public requester the opportunity to evaluate whether each of the public records withheld actually qualify for the exception claimed (in this case, attorney-client privilege or attorney work product). Other government agencies must provide enough detail about each public record withheld so that the public requester can evaluate the propriety of the exception claimed.  Failure to provide such information could be a violation of Chapter 22.