The case of Forsham v. Harris, 1979, revolved around the issue of whether data collected by private organizations but funded by federal grants could be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The plaintiffs were a group of doctors who sought access to raw data from studies conducted on diabetes treatment that had been federally funded but carried out by non-governmental entities. They argued that since public funds were used for the research, they should have access under FOIA laws. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that records held by private grantees do not constitute "agency records" within meaning and intent of FOIA unless they are created or obtained by an agency and under its control at time request is made; hence such documents cannot be accessed through a FOIA request.

In the dissenting opinion for Forsham v. Harris, Justice Brennan argued that data collected by private entities but funded by federal grants should be considered agency records and thus subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "agency records" as only those physically in possession of an agency, arguing this was too narrow and contrary to FOIA’s purpose - promoting transparency in government-funded activities. Instead, he proposed a broader definition where any record produced under a federal grant would qualify as an “agency record”. This view emphasizes that public access to such information is crucial for holding both governmental agencies and their grantees accountable.