Judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), empowers courts to invalidate unconstitutional actions by legislative and executive branches. This implied power ensures accountability, even against a state attorney general's Glomar response. And that implied power is exactly what stands between a state attorney general's Glomar response and accountability. Courts scrutinize claims of privacy in closed consumer complaints, questioning whose privacy is protected and using judicial tools to ensure transparency. Judicial review is the mechanism. Courts examine agency actions and can invalidate them when they exceed legal authority. This applies not just to statutes but to executive and administrative actions, including records denials. Under the Supremacy Clause, courts can also strike down state-level conduct that conflicts with federal law. A state AG's Glomar response is subject to judicial scrutiny, ensuring it aligns with legal standards. In camera review allows courts to privately examine disputed records, ensuring claimed exemptions are justified. Agencies must substantiate sensitivity claims to a judge. Courts apply levels of scrutiny depending on the rights at stake. Strict scrutiny applies when fundamental rights are severely burdened. For public records cases, the standard is lower, but the agency still bears the burden of proof, and vague justifications consistently fail that test. U.S. v. Nixon (1974) exemplifies judicial skepticism of executive privilege, affirming no government actor, including a state attorney general, is immune from disclosure demands. Courts have long accepted reasonable executive interpretations of law — but reasonable is not the same as unreviewable. When an AG claims a routine consumer complaint closure is too sensitive to acknowledge, a court can and should examine that claim directly, not defer to it. State courts have a documented history of limiting Glomar responses when applied too broadly to non-sensitive administrative files, Henk. That history is your legal toolkit. A consumer complaint is not a state secret. When a court says reveal, the wall comes down — and the precedents to get there already exist.