Dillard v. City of Springdale, Arkansas

Jill Dillard, her sisters Jinger Vuolo and Jessa Seewald, and her mother, Joy Dugger (plaintiffs), were stars of a reality television show about their family. In 2006 police interviewed the Duggar family regarding the sexual abuse of Dillard, Vuolo, and Seewald, who were minors when molested by their brother Josh Duggar, who was also a minor. In connection with the investigation, the City of Springdale Police Department and the County Sheriff’s Department created reports with the family’s comments that the departments promised would be kept confidential. However, around nine years later, when a tabloid filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the reports, Kathy O’Kelley (defendant), the police chief for the City of Springdale, Arkansas (defendant), and the city attorney, Ernest Cate (defendant), ordered the city’s report to be released. Likewise, Rick Hoyt (defendant), an official in the sheriff’s office of Washington County (defendant), ordered that the county’s report be given to the tabloid. The tabloid published the reports, which contained abundant detail about the molestation, and published articles identifying Josh as a perpetrator of sexual abuse toward some of his siblings. Although the articles redacted the names of Dillard, Vuolo, and Seewald, the articles contained information sufficient to enable the public to determine their exact identities. Joy and her daughters, Dillard, Vuolo, and Seewald, filed suit in federal court asserting that by releasing the reports, city officials O’Kelley, Cate, and county official Hoyt (collectively, the officials) had violated their right to privacy under the United States Constitution and committed various privacy-related torts in violation of Arkansas law in order to appear transparent to the press. Arkansas law forbade the disclosure of data collected to investigate or offer services to children and families, excepting it from disclosure in response to FOIA requests. The officials sought dismissal for failure to state a claim and asserted that in relation to the constitutional claim, they were protected by qualified immunity. The officials also argued that there was no clearly established right to informational privacy. Regarding the tort claims based on state law, the officials asserted the protection of statutory and qualified immunity. A district court declined to grant dismissal. The officials appealed. An appellate court affirmed regarding the tort claims and considered the constitutional claim.