Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act will undergo significant changes effective July 1.
Many of the amendments are meant to protect against automated requests, data scraping and phishing attempts. For example, the amended law authorizes public agencies to establish electronic portals incorporating CAPTCHA verification to ensure requestors are human. It also requires verification of a requestor’s physical address and empowers agencies to decline requests they suspect are data scraping or phishing activity. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-3.3. These provisions address legitimate cybersecurity concerns. But the legislation goes further, and some of the new provisions carry important implications for legal practitioners and advocates for government transparency.
Here are three changes you should know:
1. Denial of requests duplicative of discovery. Under the amended law, a public agency may deny an APRA request if it “is made by a person that is a party to pending or ongoing litigation” and “is duplicative of a discovery request made by the person in the pending or ongoing litigation.” I.C. § 5-14-3-4(e). Practically, this provision reduces the burden on public agencies and curtails certain discovery tactics. For example, litigants cannot circumvent a discovery deadline by submitting an APRA request for the same records they sought too late in the lawsuit, nor can they use APRA as an alternative way to get documents subject to a discovery dispute.
This amendment is a reminder that APRA and discovery serve different purposes and have different bounds. Under Indiana’s broad discovery rules, a party may be able to obtain records that a public agency could otherwise withhold under one of APRA’s discretionary exceptions — particularly where a protective order addresses confidentiality concerns that the agency might otherwise invoke to deny public access. See I.C. § 5-14-3-4(b). The takeaway: Think strategically about the forum in which you seek records.
2. Priority for certain categories of use. Under the amended law, a public agency may give priority in fulfilling records requests submitted “for civic, journalistic, academic, or personal use.” I.C. § 5-14-3-8.1(a). At first blush, this is sensible when agencies are dealing with a high volume of automated or commercially motivated requests. But the provision has potential negative implications. It invites agencies to evaluate the purpose of a request — a subjective determination that could lead to protracted back-and-forth exchanges between requestors and agencies about why someone seeks a record. That kind of friction is antithetical to APRA’s design and could chill newsgathering.
Indeed, the Indiana Supreme Court in Nardi v. King warned that requiring courts to assess the purpose of APRA requests “would arguably chill the public exercise of rights under APRA, especially those parties conducting confidential investigations like journalists.” 253 N.E.3d 1098, 1106 (Ind. 2025). Nor should it be for the government to determine what is “newsworthy” or otherwise valuable enough to qualify within the statute’s preferred categories. Granted, this amendment addresses only the priority of requests — it does not authorize an outright denial of a request that falls outside the listed uses. But practitioners should be alert that this amendment could, in practice, cause delays for disfavored yet entirely legitimate requests.
3. Priority for Indiana residents and potential delays for out-of-state requests. The amended law also allows a public agency to give priority in fulfilling records requests to Indiana residents. I.C. § 5-14-3-8.1(a). This is in accord with Indiana Supreme Court precedent that “APRA is intended to ensure Hoosiers have broad access to most government records.” Family & Social Services Administration v. Saint, 258 N.E.3d 972, 977 (Ind. 2025).
Unlike some other states (Virginia and Arkansas, for example), Indiana allows out-of-state records requests — which is good for transparency. Cf. Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3704(A); Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a)(1)(A). But Indiana’s new legislation provides that requests from “out-of-state entities” (or from “automated systems”) may be “delayed as necessary to prevent disruption of core agency functions” and may be subject to supplemental fees. I.C. § 5-14-3-8.1(b).
This new provision introduces additional fact-sensitive inquiries and presents interesting legal questions when an out-of-state request is involved: What does “as necessary” mean? Does “necessary” impose a strict burden, or will courts engraft some sort of a reasonableness test? And what constitutes a “core agency function”? Will agencies claim that virtually any function qualifies? This presents potential problems for out-of-state journalists and media entities covering Indiana public agencies. As the old adage goes, “Access delayed is access denied.”
The new APRA landscape
The 2026 APRA amendments represent a thoughtful effort to address real challenges that public agencies face. Practitioners on both sides of public records disputes should study these changes carefully. Ultimately, the courts will determine how the new provisions affect APRA’s foundational commitment to transparency. •
__________
Meek and Christensen are partners in Dentons’ Indianapolis office.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.