
    CONSUMER CREDIT RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA et al.
    A17A0620
    Court of Appeals of Georgia.
    August 15, 2018
    Thurbert E. Baker, Nathan Lewis Garroway, Mark Adam Silver, Atlanta, for Appellant.
    Christopher Michael Carr, Atlanta, Jennifer Colangelo, Megan Poitevint Mitchell, Henry Chalmers, Atlanta, for Appellee.
   Barnes, Presiding Judge.

In Consumer Credit Research Foundation v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga. , 341 Ga.App. 323, 800 S.E.2d 24 (2017), this Court construed Bowers v. Shelton , 265 Ga. 247, 453 S.E.2d 741 (1995) to mean that state agencies do not have the discretion to publicly release records covered by any of the specific exemptions to disclosure listed in OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) of Georgia's Open Records Act (the "Act"). Based on that construction of Bowers , this Court vacated the trial court's summary judgment order and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the records at issue in the case were covered by one or both of the specific statutory exemptions for materials related to academic research so as to bar disclosure of those records. Consumer Credit Research Foundation , 341 Ga.App. at 329, 800 S.E.2d 24. See OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (35) and (36).

The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari, disapproved of this Court's interpretation of Bowers , and reversed the judgment of this Court. Campaign for Accountability v. Consumer Credit Research Foundation , 303 Ga. 828, 815 S.E.2d 841 (2018). The Supreme Court held that OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) of the Act does not bar a state agency from publicly releasing records, unless the specific exemption listed in the statute that covers the records at issue expressly prohibits disclosure. Campaign for Accountability , 303 Ga. at 830-34 (2), 815 S.E.2d 841. Because the specific exemptions for materials related to academic research ( OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (35) and (36) ) do not expressly prohibit disclosure, the Supreme Court held that the records at issue in this case are not subject to any prohibition against disclosure under the Act. Campaign for Accountability , 303 Ga. at 837-38 (4), 815 S.E.2d 841.

Accordingly, in light of the Supreme Court's decision, we vacate our prior judgment, adopt the decision of the Supreme Court as our own, and affirm the trial court's summary judgment order.

Judgment affirmed.

McMillian and Mercier, JJ., concur.  