The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that state corrections officials violated Ohio's Public Records Act by unreasonably delaying their response to legitimate public records requests, ordering statutory damages be paid to the requester.
In *State ex rel. Macksyn v. Spencer* (2026-Ohio-44), decided Jan. 13, 2026, the court addressed a mandamus action filed by Delanor L. Macksyn against three Department of Rehabilitation and Correction employees: Kenneth Spencer, LeAnn Walker-Williams, and Kelly Rose. Macksyn had sought a writ of mandamus to compel production of public records he had requested from the state agency.
The court's per curiam opinion, joined by five justices, found that respondents' delay in producing records responsive to two of Macksyn's public records requests was unreasonable under Ohio Revised Code 149.43, the state's public records statute. The decision grants Macksyn's request for statutory damages in part.
Chief Justice Kennedy concurred in part and dissented in part with a separate opinion, while Justice Fischer also concurred in part and dissented in part, specifically objecting to the award of statutory damages to Macksyn.
The case represents the latest chapter in ongoing litigation between Macksyn and the corrections department. The court noted that on June 18, 2025, it had issued an earlier opinion in the same case denying the writ of mandamus as to most of the records Macksyn had sought.
Ohio's Public Records Act requires government agencies to make public records "promptly available" for inspection and copying. The statute includes provisions for statutory damages when agencies fail to comply with reasonable requests in a timely manner. The law reflects Ohio's policy that government operations should be conducted transparently and that citizens have broad access to public information.
The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction oversees Ohio's state prison system and related correctional facilities. Public records requests to corrections agencies often involve sensitive information about prison operations, inmate records, and facility procedures, requiring agencies to balance transparency obligations with security and privacy concerns.
Mandamus actions represent a traditional legal remedy used to compel government officials to perform duties required by law. In the context of public records disputes, citizens can seek writs of mandamus when government agencies fail to respond appropriately to records requests. The availability of statutory damages under Ohio law provides additional enforcement mechanisms for the state's transparency requirements.
The court's decision underscores that even when agencies may have legitimate concerns about producing certain records, they cannot simply ignore or indefinitely delay responding to public records requests. Government entities must engage with requests promptly and provide clear explanations when records cannot be produced.
The partial nature of the damages award suggests the court found some delays more problematic than others, though the full reasoning behind the court's analysis is not detailed in the available portions of the opinion. The split among the justices indicates disagreement about either the extent of the violations or the appropriate remedy.
Public records litigation has become increasingly common as citizens and organizations seek greater government accountability. Ohio's statute provides one of the more robust enforcement mechanisms in the country, including the possibility of attorney fees and statutory damages for violations.
The case also highlights ongoing tensions between government efficiency and transparency obligations. Agencies often face resource constraints and competing priorities that can affect their ability to respond to records requests promptly, but courts have generally held that such practical challenges do not excuse violations of statutory requirements.
For government agencies, the decision serves as a reminder to establish clear procedures for handling public records requests and to document their efforts to respond appropriately. Agencies should ensure staff understand both the requirements and timelines established by the Public Records Act.
The ruling may influence how other Ohio agencies approach public records compliance, particularly regarding what constitutes reasonable response times for complex requests. The award of damages demonstrates that courts will enforce the law's requirements even against state agencies.
Government transparency advocates view such decisions as essential for maintaining public accountability, while agency officials often express concerns about the practical challenges of balancing transparency requirements with other operational priorities and resource limitations.
The case will likely be cited in future public records litigation as courts continue to define the boundaries of reasonable compliance with Ohio's transparency laws. The decision reinforces that while agencies may face legitimate challenges in responding to records requests, they cannot ignore their legal obligations under the Public Records Act.