I haven’t found a full timeline of what happened.
As far as I can tell, Ray made the request at some point. His request was denied. He subsequently asked for a written policy, and they didn’t provide one. Their failure to provide a written policy after denying him is the basis for the claim, “they withheld information”.
But that’s silly. If he had a prompt answer, he already had all the information he needed. If the answer was not prompt, or if there were multiple conflicting answers, then again a written policy is irrelevant and he should prevail.
Asking, “Can I see your written policy?” often strikes me as a stalling tactic. There are always some decisions that must be made without a written policy in place. You write down a policy only when the same circumstances have repeatedly arisen or are expected to do so.
If you walk into a random government building and urinate on a desk, you will promptly be escorted out. Even if there is no specific written policy at that facility about desk-urination. Absence of a desk-urination policy is not unfair, since (a) every desk-urinator is escorted out, and (b) if you had bothered to ask then you would have been told this in no uncertain terms.
Finally, I don’t care what the National Review thinks, even if they agree with liberals. In fact, taking the National Review seriously because they agree with liberals is naked confirmation bias. I will note that some of the Volokh crew have expressed the same uncertainty as I do, so thoughtful conservatives do not all necessarily agree with Kagan.