A Boeing 737 jetliner under assembly in Renton, Washington on Feb. 4, 2014.
A Boeing 737 jetliner under assembly in Renton, Washington on Feb. 4, 2014. REUTERS/David Ryder

Over the objections of Attorney General Ken Paxton‘s office, the Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling in June makingย it easier for private companies to keep secret details of their contracts with the state of Texas and local governments, a move that public information advocates warn is ripe for abuse.

In a 7-1 opinion, the justices ordered Paxton’s officeย to block the release of some information contained in a lease between Boeing and the Port Authority of San Antonio because the aerospace manufacturer said making the details publicย could prove useful to Boeingโ€™s competitors. Thatโ€™s a lower threshold than what the state had previously observed,ย that information could be withheld only to protectย proprietary information andย trade secrets.

โ€œFor followers of open government, itโ€™s the biggest decision in recent memory simply because the exception is so broad,โ€ said Bill Cobb, a former deputy in the Attorney Generalโ€™s office. โ€œI think itโ€™s going to prevent a lot of information from being released.โ€

The ruling initiallyย drew little attention but has since gained notice around Austin as lawyers for state agencies and private businesses consider its reach. In the past three months, the Attorney Generalโ€™s office has cited the ruling at least three times in siding with private firms seeking to blockย public disclosureย ofย details in government contracts.

โ€œFor many years, this office concluded the terms of a contract and especially the pricing of a winning bidder are public and generally not excepted from disclosure,โ€ Assistant Attorney General Rahat Huq wrote this month in an opinion on a public information request regarding aย contract between the Texas Department of Insurance and Houston-based Masterword Services for language interpretation services. Huq went on to explain that โ€œpursuant to Boeing,โ€ the officeโ€™s view on disclosing all of the terms of a government contract has changed. Huq made similar decisions recently at the behest of software firm Blackboard, Inc., and healthcare providers Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas and Evercare of Texas.

The Boeing case revolved around the aerospace manufacturerโ€™s lease for a manufacturing facility at the former Kelly Air Force Base with the Port Authority of San Antonio. For the past decade, Boeing has worked to block a 2005 request for the full lease madeย by a former employee. The issueย reached the Attorney Generalโ€™s office, which argued that the aspects of the lease that Boeing wanted to redact did not qualify for one of the exceptions under the state’s Public Information Act.

Historically, the AGโ€™s office has maintained that a company could block the release of information in a government contract if itโ€™s considered a trade secret or proprietary information. The kind of details in the lease Boeing wanted to shield from disclosure โ€” such as figures used to calculate the companyโ€™s share of the maintenance costs, and the amount of insurance coverage Boeing was required to provide โ€” did not meet that threshold, according to the Attorney Generalโ€™s office. Boeing argued that the information at issue could allow a competitor to calculate the companyโ€™s overhead costs at its San Antonio facility, which would put Boeing at a disadvantage for future government projects.

After two lower courts sided with the Attorney Generalโ€™s office, the Texas Supreme Court reversed course in June. With just one justice in dissent,ย the court ruled that Boeing could block information in the lease from being disclosed. The test for disclosure, Justice John Devine wrote in his majority opinion, โ€œis whether knowing another bidderโ€™s overhead costs would be an advantage, not whether it would be a decisive advantage.โ€

โ€œItโ€™s one of the worst rulings to ever come out of the Texas Supreme Court,โ€ said Joe Larsen, an open government attorney who also serves on the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. โ€œContracts with governmental bodies have always been what are called โ€˜super public.โ€™ That is, they couldnโ€™t be withheld unless they are expressly confidential under another statute.โ€

Devine noted in his majority opinion that the Attorney Generalโ€™s office had recently ruled that records related to Gov. Greg Abbottโ€™s meetings with out-of-state businesses he is trying to bring to Texas are confidential because his office is a โ€œcompetitorโ€ for those jobs.

โ€œIt was an exception that wasnโ€™t really available to private parties until now,โ€ Cobb said. โ€œNow itโ€™s an additional weapon that private parties have to avoid disclosure of those documents.โ€

In his dissent, Justice Jeffrey Boyd concluded that Boeingโ€™s claims were โ€œtoo hypothetical and speculativeโ€ to allow for blocking the release of information in government documents.

โ€œBoeing has not identified any particular federal contract for which it is currently or will soon be competing or any competitor against whom it is or will be competing for such a contract,โ€ Boyd wrote. โ€œNor has Boeing shown any actual specific advantage that any competitor would recognize by obtaining the information.โ€

Across state government, the ruling has raised questions about its impact, particularly in light of changes the Texas Legislature made earlier this year regarding government contracts in response to allegations of corruption and cronyism. Those changes, most of which were in Senate Bill 20, were signed into law before the court ruled on Boeing vs. Paxton.

Lawyers at the General Land Office wondered how to address a provision in Senate Bill 20 that requires agency contracts to be posted online. The agency decided to add a โ€œboilerplate provisionโ€ in new contracts making clear that the contracts would be publicly posted, spokeswoman Brittany Eck said.

โ€œUpon signing, the vendor accepts this as a term of the contract,โ€ Eck said. โ€œIf this provision is challenged, and the contract is requested, the GLO will seek a ruling from the Attorney General’s Office.”

Other agencies said they were still working out the impact of the ruling.

โ€œWe are considering the implications of theย Boeing v. Paxtonย decision in our SB 20 implementation planning, but we havenโ€™t made any final decisions on such implementation,โ€ said Lauren Willis, spokeswoman for the Comptrollerโ€™s office.

Disclosure: Boeing has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune.ย A complete list of Tribuneย donorsย and sponsors can be viewedย here.

 Learn about The Texas Tribuneโ€™s policies, including our partnership with The Trust Project to increase transparency in news.

Aman Batheja was a political reporter and editor for the Tribune from 2012 to 2019. Previously he worked for eight years at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, most of that time covering state and local politics....