This article was first published as part of a collaboration between ProPublica, The Texas Newsroom And The Texas Tribune as part of an effort to account for how power is exercised in Texas.
Months after fighting to keep secret emails exchanged between Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s office and tech billionaire Elon Musk’s companies, state officials have released nearly 1,400 pages to the Texas Newsroom.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s influence at the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 requested communications from Abbott’s office with employees at four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
Musk, one of the richest people in the world, has invested heavily in Texas. He moved many of his companies’ headquarters to the state and hired lobbyists who successfully pushed through several new laws that will benefit his companies.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s influence at the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 requested communications from Abbott’s office with employees at four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
Musk and representatives of his companies did not respond to questions about the records.
Musk, one of the richest people in the world, has invested heavily in Texas. He moved many of his companies’ headquarters to the state and hired lobbyists who successfully pushed through several new laws that will benefit his companies.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s influence at the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 requested communications from Abbott’s office with employees at four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
“Companies are willing to assert that information is confidential and commercial, and more and more government agencies are willing to not question company claims,” Leatherbury said. (Leatherbury has done pro bono legal work for The Texas Newsroom.)
Musk and representatives of his companies did not respond to questions about the records.
Musk, one of the richest people in the world, has invested heavily in Texas. He moved many of his companies’ headquarters to the state and hired lobbyists who successfully pushed through several new laws that will benefit his companies.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s influence at the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 requested communications from Abbott’s office with employees at four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
The problem has been exacerbated, Leatherbury added, by the fact that the attorney general’s office, which arbitrates public records disputes, does not have the authority to investigate whether the records companies want to withhold actually contain trade secrets.
“Companies are willing to assert that information is confidential and commercial, and more and more government agencies are willing to not question company claims,” Leatherbury said. (Leatherbury has done pro bono legal work for The Texas Newsroom.)
Musk and representatives of his companies did not respond to questions about the records.
Musk, one of the richest people in the world, has invested heavily in Texas. He moved many of his companies’ headquarters to the state and hired lobbyists who successfully pushed through several new laws that will benefit his companies.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s influence at the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 requested communications from Abbott’s office with employees at four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
Tom Leatherbury, who directs the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman Law School, said businesses took advantage of the ruling. One of the most prominent examples of the ruling’s effect on transparency is the refusal of McAllen, Texas, to disclose how much money was spent to lure pop star Enrique Iglesias to the city for a concert. The city argued that such disclosures would harm its ability to negotiate with artists for future performances. Eventually, it was revealed that Iglesias had received almost half a million dollars.
The problem has been exacerbated, Leatherbury added, by the fact that the attorney general’s office, which arbitrates public records disputes, does not have the authority to investigate whether the records companies want to withhold actually contain trade secrets.
“Companies are willing to assert that information is confidential and commercial, and more and more government agencies are willing to not question company claims,” Leatherbury said. (Leatherbury has done pro bono legal work for The Texas Newsroom.)
Musk and representatives of his companies did not respond to questions about the records.
Musk, one of the richest people in the world, has invested heavily in Texas. He moved many of his companies’ headquarters to the state and hired lobbyists who successfully pushed through several new laws that will benefit his companies.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s influence at the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 requested communications from Abbott’s office with employees at four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
Open government experts say the limited disclosure is emblematic of a broader transparency problem in Texas. They pointed to a 2015 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed companies to object to the disclosure of documents by arguing that they contained “competitively sensitive” information. Experts say the move makes it harder to obtain records documenting interactions between governments and private companies.
Tom Leatherbury, who directs the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman Law School, said businesses took advantage of the ruling. One of the most prominent examples of the ruling’s effect on transparency is the refusal of McAllen, Texas, to disclose how much money was spent to lure pop star Enrique Iglesias to the city for a concert. The city argued that such disclosures would harm its ability to negotiate with artists for future performances. Eventually, it was revealed that Iglesias had received almost half a million dollars.
The problem has been exacerbated, Leatherbury added, by the fact that the attorney general’s office, which arbitrates public records disputes, does not have the authority to investigate whether the records companies want to withhold actually contain trade secrets.
“Companies are willing to assert that information is confidential and commercial, and more and more government agencies are willing to not question company claims,” Leatherbury said. (Leatherbury has done pro bono legal work for The Texas Newsroom.)
Musk and representatives of his companies did not respond to questions about the records.
Musk, one of the richest people in the world, has invested heavily in Texas. He moved many of his companies’ headquarters to the state and hired lobbyists who successfully pushed through several new laws that will benefit his companies.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s influence at the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 requested communications from Abbott’s office with employees at four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
Abbott spokesman Andrew Mahaleris said the governor’s office “strictly complies with the Texas Public Information Act and releases any relevant information that is deemed non-confidential or excluded from disclosure.”
Open government experts say the limited disclosure is emblematic of a broader transparency problem in Texas. They pointed to a 2015 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed companies to object to the disclosure of documents by arguing that they contained “competitively sensitive” information. Experts say the move makes it harder to obtain records documenting interactions between governments and private companies.
Tom Leatherbury, who directs the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman Law School, said businesses took advantage of the ruling. One of the most prominent examples of the ruling’s effect on transparency is the refusal of McAllen, Texas, to disclose how much money was spent to lure pop star Enrique Iglesias to the city for a concert. The city argued that such disclosures would harm its ability to negotiate with artists for future performances. Eventually, it was revealed that Iglesias had received almost half a million dollars.
The problem has been exacerbated, Leatherbury added, by the fact that the attorney general’s office, which arbitrates public records disputes, does not have the authority to investigate whether the records companies want to withhold actually contain trade secrets.
“Companies are willing to assert that information is confidential and commercial, and more and more government agencies are willing to not question company claims,” Leatherbury said. (Leatherbury has done pro bono legal work for The Texas Newsroom.)
Musk and representatives of his companies did not respond to questions about the records.
Musk, one of the richest people in the world, has invested heavily in Texas. He moved many of his companies’ headquarters to the state and hired lobbyists who successfully pushed through several new laws that will benefit his companies.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s influence at the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 requested communications from Abbott’s office with employees at four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
The documents were provided in response to a public records request from Texas Newsroom, which asked Abbott’s office for communications with Musk and the businessman’s employees dating back to last fall. Lawyers for Abbott and Elon Musk opposed their release, arguing they would reveal trade secrets, potentially “intimate and embarrassing” exchanges or confidential legal and political discussions.
Abbott spokesman Andrew Mahaleris said the governor’s office “strictly complies with the Texas Public Information Act and releases any relevant information that is deemed non-confidential or excluded from disclosure.”
Open government experts say the limited disclosure is emblematic of a broader transparency problem in Texas. They pointed to a 2015 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed companies to object to the disclosure of documents by arguing that they contained “competitively sensitive” information. Experts say the move makes it harder to obtain records documenting interactions between governments and private companies.
Tom Leatherbury, who directs the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman Law School, said businesses took advantage of the ruling. One of the most prominent examples of the ruling’s effect on transparency is the refusal of McAllen, Texas, to disclose how much money was spent to lure pop star Enrique Iglesias to the city for a concert. The city argued that such disclosures would harm its ability to negotiate with artists for future performances. Eventually, it was revealed that Iglesias had received almost half a million dollars.
The problem has been exacerbated, Leatherbury added, by the fact that the attorney general’s office, which arbitrates public records disputes, does not have the authority to investigate whether the records companies want to withhold actually contain trade secrets.
“Companies are willing to assert that information is confidential and commercial, and more and more government agencies are willing to not question company claims,” Leatherbury said. (Leatherbury has done pro bono legal work for The Texas Newsroom.)
Musk and representatives of his companies did not respond to questions about the records.
Musk, one of the richest people in the world, has invested heavily in Texas. He moved many of his companies’ headquarters to the state and hired lobbyists who successfully pushed through several new laws that will benefit his companies.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s influence at the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 requested communications from Abbott’s office with employees at four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
One is an invitation to happy hour. Another is a reminder of SpaceX’s upcoming launch.
The documents were provided in response to a public records request from Texas Newsroom, which asked Abbott’s office for communications with Musk and the businessman’s employees dating back to last fall. Lawyers for Abbott and Elon Musk opposed their release, arguing they would reveal trade secrets, potentially “intimate and embarrassing” exchanges or confidential legal and political discussions.
Abbott spokesman Andrew Mahaleris said the governor’s office “strictly complies with the Texas Public Information Act and releases any relevant information that is deemed non-confidential or excluded from disclosure.”
Open government experts say the limited disclosure is emblematic of a broader transparency problem in Texas. They pointed to a 2015 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed companies to object to the disclosure of documents by arguing that they contained “competitively sensitive” information. Experts say the move makes it harder to obtain records documenting interactions between governments and private companies.
Tom Leatherbury, who directs the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman Law School, said businesses took advantage of the ruling. One of the most prominent examples of the ruling’s effect on transparency is the refusal of McAllen, Texas, to disclose how much money was spent to lure pop star Enrique Iglesias to the city for a concert. The city argued that such disclosures would harm its ability to negotiate with artists for future performances. Eventually, it was revealed that Iglesias had received almost half a million dollars.
The problem has been exacerbated, Leatherbury added, by the fact that the attorney general’s office, which arbitrates public records disputes, does not have the authority to investigate whether the records companies want to withhold actually contain trade secrets.
“Companies are willing to assert that information is confidential and commercial, and more and more government agencies are willing to not question company claims,” Leatherbury said. (Leatherbury has done pro bono legal work for The Texas Newsroom.)
Musk and representatives of his companies did not respond to questions about the records.
Musk, one of the richest people in the world, has invested heavily in Texas. He moved many of his companies’ headquarters to the state and hired lobbyists who successfully pushed through several new laws that will benefit his companies.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s influence at the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 requested communications from Abbott’s office with employees at four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
Of those that were readable, many were either already public or provided little information. They included old incorporation files for Musk’s SpaceX rocket company, some agendas from the governor’s aerospace and aviation committee, emails about a state grant to SpaceX and an application from a then-Musk employee to serve on a state commission.
One is an invitation to happy hour. Another is a reminder of SpaceX’s upcoming launch.
The documents were provided in response to a public records request from Texas Newsroom, which asked Abbott’s office for communications with Musk and the businessman’s employees dating back to last fall. Lawyers for Abbott and Elon Musk opposed their release, arguing they would reveal trade secrets, potentially “intimate and embarrassing” exchanges or confidential legal and political discussions.
Abbott spokesman Andrew Mahaleris said the governor’s office “strictly complies with the Texas Public Information Act and releases any relevant information that is deemed non-confidential or excluded from disclosure.”
Open government experts say the limited disclosure is emblematic of a broader transparency problem in Texas. They pointed to a 2015 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed companies to object to the disclosure of documents by arguing that they contained “competitively sensitive” information. Experts say the move makes it harder to obtain records documenting interactions between governments and private companies.
Tom Leatherbury, who directs the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman Law School, said businesses took advantage of the ruling. One of the most prominent examples of the ruling’s effect on transparency is the refusal of McAllen, Texas, to disclose how much money was spent to lure pop star Enrique Iglesias to the city for a concert. The city argued that such disclosures would harm its ability to negotiate with artists for future performances. Eventually, it was revealed that Iglesias had received almost half a million dollars.
The problem has been exacerbated, Leatherbury added, by the fact that the attorney general’s office, which arbitrates public records disputes, does not have the authority to investigate whether the records companies want to withhold actually contain trade secrets.
“Companies are willing to assert that information is confidential and commercial, and more and more government agencies are willing to not question company claims,” Leatherbury said. (Leatherbury has done pro bono legal work for The Texas Newsroom.)
Musk and representatives of his companies did not respond to questions about the records.
Musk, one of the richest people in the world, has invested heavily in Texas. He moved many of his companies’ headquarters to the state and hired lobbyists who successfully pushed through several new laws that will benefit his companies.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s influence at the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 requested communications from Abbott’s office with employees at four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
The documents, however, reveal little about the relationship between the two men or Musk’s influence over state government. In fact, all but about 200 of the pages are completely blacked out.
Of those that were readable, many were either already public or provided little information. They included old incorporation files for Musk’s SpaceX rocket company, some agendas from the governor’s aerospace and aviation committee, emails about a state grant to SpaceX and an application from a then-Musk employee to serve on a state commission.
One is an invitation to happy hour. Another is a reminder of SpaceX’s upcoming launch.
The documents were provided in response to a public records request from Texas Newsroom, which asked Abbott’s office for communications with Musk and the businessman’s employees dating back to last fall. Lawyers for Abbott and Elon Musk opposed their release, arguing they would reveal trade secrets, potentially “intimate and embarrassing” exchanges or confidential legal and political discussions.
Abbott spokesman Andrew Mahaleris said the governor’s office “strictly complies with the Texas Public Information Act and releases any relevant information that is deemed non-confidential or excluded from disclosure.”
Open government experts say the limited disclosure is emblematic of a broader transparency problem in Texas. They pointed to a 2015 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed companies to object to the disclosure of documents by arguing that they contained “competitively sensitive” information. Experts say the move makes it harder to obtain records documenting interactions between governments and private companies.
Tom Leatherbury, who directs the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman Law School, said businesses took advantage of the ruling. One of the most prominent examples of the ruling’s effect on transparency is the refusal of McAllen, Texas, to disclose how much money was spent to lure pop star Enrique Iglesias to the city for a concert. The city argued that such disclosures would harm its ability to negotiate with artists for future performances. Eventually, it was revealed that Iglesias had received almost half a million dollars.
The problem has been exacerbated, Leatherbury added, by the fact that the attorney general’s office, which arbitrates public records disputes, does not have the authority to investigate whether the records companies want to withhold actually contain trade secrets.
“Companies are willing to assert that information is confidential and commercial, and more and more government agencies are willing to not question company claims,” Leatherbury said. (Leatherbury has done pro bono legal work for The Texas Newsroom.)
Musk and representatives of his companies did not respond to questions about the records.
Musk, one of the richest people in the world, has invested heavily in Texas. He moved many of his companies’ headquarters to the state and hired lobbyists who successfully pushed through several new laws that will benefit his companies.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s influence at the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 requested communications from Abbott’s office with employees at four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
The documents, however, reveal little about the relationship between the two men or Musk’s influence over state government. In fact, all but about 200 of the pages are completely blacked out.
Of those that were readable, many were either already public or provided little information. They included old incorporation files for Musk’s SpaceX rocket company, some agendas from the governor’s aerospace and aviation committee, emails about a state grant to SpaceX and an application from a then-Musk employee to serve on a state commission.
One is an invitation to happy hour. Another is a reminder of SpaceX’s upcoming launch.
The documents were provided in response to a public records request from Texas Newsroom, which asked Abbott’s office for communications with Musk and the businessman’s employees dating back to last fall. Lawyers for Abbott and Elon Musk opposed their release, arguing they would reveal trade secrets, potentially “intimate and embarrassing” exchanges or confidential legal and political discussions.
Abbott spokesman Andrew Mahaleris said the governor’s office “strictly complies with the Texas Public Information Act and releases any relevant information that is deemed non-confidential or excluded from disclosure.”
Open government experts say the limited disclosure is emblematic of a broader transparency problem in Texas. They pointed to a 2015 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed companies to object to the disclosure of documents by arguing that they contained “competitively sensitive” information. Experts say the move makes it harder to obtain records documenting interactions between governments and private companies.
Tom Leatherbury, who directs the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman Law School, said businesses took advantage of the ruling. One of the most prominent examples of the ruling’s effect on transparency is the refusal of McAllen, Texas, to disclose how much money was spent to lure pop star Enrique Iglesias to the city for a concert. The city argued that such disclosures would harm its ability to negotiate with artists for future performances. Eventually, it was revealed that Iglesias had received almost half a million dollars.
The problem has been exacerbated, Leatherbury added, by the fact that the attorney general’s office, which arbitrates public records disputes, does not have the authority to investigate whether the records companies want to withhold actually contain trade secrets.
“Companies are willing to assert that information is confidential and commercial, and more and more government agencies are willing to not question company claims,” Leatherbury said. (Leatherbury has done pro bono legal work for The Texas Newsroom.)
Musk and representatives of his companies did not respond to questions about the records.
Musk, one of the richest people in the world, has invested heavily in Texas. He moved many of his companies’ headquarters to the state and hired lobbyists who successfully pushed through several new laws that will benefit his companies.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s influence at the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 requested communications from Abbott’s office with employees at four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. Once the check cleared, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying publicly releasing the emails would harm its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policy decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices businesses to invest here. Taylor said some of the documents were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common law confidentiality” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and does not present a legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing Musk’s emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for decision-making.”
In the end, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In an Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of certain documents deemed “neither very intimate nor embarrassing” or “of legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of documents, the vast majority of which were fully redacted.
Some files contained a note that seemed to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for tender documents for 974 redacted pages. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees have also been removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents directly related to the operations of a large corporation in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such obstacles are increasingly common as legislation and court rulings have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law intended to ensure the disclosure of basic information about government deals with private companies. But open government experts said the law doesn’t go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still object to disclosing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add exceptions to what is considered public information each legislative session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions at government public meetings on certain military and aerospace matters.
Even in the face of growing challenges in accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were baffled by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages and then completely black them out. Leatherbury said the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of documents meeting the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the whole document, even though it kind of doesn’t make sense,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the attorney general’s office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge the result.
If a member of the public believes that a government agency is breaking the law, they can take legal action. But experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other leaders. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s unclear how well such a decision to challenge the records would work.
“Every citizen of Texas should care about access to these types of records because they shed light on how our public officials make big decisions that affect the lands where people live and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
