ACLU v. Martin

── ACLU v. Martin ── Court: Superior Court of Delaware Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ) UNION OF DELAWARE, ) ) Appellant, ) C.A. No. K25A-01-001 RLG ) v. ) ) TIM MARTIN, in his official ) capacity as FOIA Coordinator for ) the DELAWARE DEPARTMENT ) OF CORRECTIONS, 1 ) ) Appellee. ) Submitted: December 30, 2025 Decided: May 18, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Upon Appeal of Chief Deputy Attorney General Opinions No. 24-IB50 and 24-IB52 – REVERSED in part. Andrew Bernstein, Esquire (argued) and Dwane Bensing, Esquire, American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Appellant. Michael Gordon, Esquire (argued), and Abigail de Uriarte, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Appellee. GREEN-STREETT, J. 1 This litigation was instituted against Tim Martin, in his official capacity as FOIA Coordinator for The Delaware Department of Corrections. The Court is aware that the proper name is the Delaware Department of Correction. 1 I. Introduction An organization submitted two requests for information from a State agency under Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act. The State agency denied those requests, positing the agency did not maintain such records and any related records it did maintain were exempt from disclosure. The Attorney General’s office upheld those denials, prompting the requesting organization to file this appeal. As the agency incorrectly withheld public information under Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act, the agency’s denial of the requests is REVERSED in part. II. Factual and Procedural Background A. The “Eligible Voter Request” The American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware (“ACLU”) endeavors to assist “incarcerated people in accessing their civil rights,” including the right of incarcerated people to vote in elections. 2 To that end, ACLU filed two requests for information from the Delaware Department of Correction (“DOC”) under 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008, Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). 3 The first request (the “Eligible Voter Request”) sought the number of people incarcerated: 1) with a lead charge of a misdemeanor, or 2) on pre-trial detention. 4 For individuals 2 Opening Br. at 1. 3 Id. 4 Id. at 5. 2 with those designations, ACLU also requested their name, State Bureau of Identification (“SBI”) number, and initial date of incarceration. 5 ACLU desired that information to facilitate contacting those incarcerated individuals who might be eligible to vote.6 DOC denied the Eligible Voter Request, citing an exemption under FOIA that applies to “any records pertaining to pending or potential litigation which are not records of any court.” 7 The “pending or potential litigation” concerning DOC stemmed from litigation in which ACLU represented the Prisoners Legal Advocacy Network in a lawsuit against DOC and the Delaware Department of Election (“DOE”) filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.8 The District Court dismissed that litigation on August 23, 2024.9 ACLU indicated to DOC “that it did not intend to appeal the dismissal of the litigation.”10 After issuing its denial, DOC informed ACLU that “[t]he Department of Correction and the Department of Election are working on