More than three years after it was tossed out by a judge, a lawsuit that could affect how public bodies operate in South Carolina finally got its day in court. A suit filed on behalf of The State newspaper against the Lexington-Richland 5 school district challenging actions the school board took in executive session was heard by Judge Daniel Coble at the Richland County Courthouse on Wednesday. Although the judge did not issue a ruling, both sides asked the court to issue a summary judgment quickly deciding the case. The suit was originally filed in 2021 after the school board approved a resignation agreement with former Superintendent Christina Melton without a public vote. The agreement paid the reigning S.C. superintendent of the year $226,368 to leave over disputes with board members.

Louisa Trauma Center submitted multiple (federal) Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, seeking records related to the training and performance of asylum officers. For more than two years, the agency failed to make a determination on these requests. Only after Louisa Trauma Center filed this lawsuit did the agency produce any requested records. Even then, many of the records were heavily redacted. Shortly after producing the redacted records, the agency moved to dismiss, arguing that the suit was rendered moot because it had produced the relevant records. The agency also argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Louisa Trauma Center had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The district court agreed and dismissed the case….That many of the produced records were heavily redacted, USCIS claims, does not change this result. Had USCIS produced the entirety of the records responsive to Louise Trauma Center’s requests, the case would be moot.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement told a nonprofit watchdog this week that it had found “no records” of body camera footage produced during its sweeping immigration enforcement operation in Chicago, raising concerns that it was skirting laws intended to ensure transparency and accountability. The assertion, contained in a response to a public information request from the Freedom of the Press Foundation, contradicted the Trump administration’s sworn court testimony and the fact that it had previously submitted video footage to a judge. The response also raised questions about whether the administration is fully complying with a court order that required the use of body cameras in the monthslong operation, which has included a string of allegations of excessive force.