374 N.C. 292
N.C.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (several North Carolina news organizations) requested UNC‑Chapel Hill records under the NC Public Records Act showing, since Jan. 1, 2007, for any student found responsible for rape/sexual assault: the student’s name, date and nature of the violation, and sanction.
- UNC‑CH refused, asserting FERPA (20 U.S.C. § 1232g) and Department of Education regulations barred disclosure or left disclosure to the institution’s discretion to protect victim privacy and Title IX interests.
- Plaintiffs sued under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132‑1 et seq.; the trial court denied relief; the Court of Appeals reversed, ordering disclosure; the NC Supreme Court granted review.
- FERPA contains an exception permitting disclosure of the “final results” of disciplinary proceedings for crimes of violence or nonforcible sex offenses—limited to the student’s name, the violation, and any sanction.
- The Supreme Court held UNC‑CH must disclose, as public records, the name, violation, and sanction for students the University found responsible for sexual assault; FERPA does not vest the University with discretion to withhold those items and does not preempt the NC Public Records Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FERPA permits UNC‑CH to withhold the requested disciplinary information | FERPA’s disclosure exception authorizes release of the specified items; state Public Records Act requires disclosure | FERPA confers discretion to withhold records (to protect victims/Title IX process) | Held for plaintiff: FERPA does not give UNC discretion to withhold the specific items (name, violation, sanction) listed in § 1232g(b)(6)(C) |
| Scope of information subject to disclosure under FERPA | The exception covers the name, violation, and sanction (but not dates) | UNC sought broader exclusion (including dates) | Held: Only name, violation, and sanction are required to be disclosed; dates of offenses are not covered by FERPA’s exception |
| Whether FERPA preempts the NC Public Records Act via conflict preemption | No: statutes can be harmonized; disclosure permitted by FERPA fits state mandate | Yes: federal law grants discretion, so state cannot compel disclosure (conflict/field preemption) | Held: No preemption; compliance with both laws is possible and the Public Records Act is not an obstacle to FERPA’s purposes |
| Whether FERPA field‑preempts state public‑records law (universally forbids state action) | No: Congress did not occupy the field to bar state public‑records laws | Yes: FERPA and regs preclude state compulsion of disclosure | Held: Field preemption rejected; federal law does not forbid states from requiring disclosure in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. 373 (2015) (framework for conflict preemption analysis)
- United States v. Miami University, 294 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 2002) (FERPA does not categorically bar state public‑records disclosure of disciplinary outcomes)
- Barnett Bank of Marion Cty., N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) (federal authorization can preempt state prohibitions)
- Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982) (federal regulations may preempt state law even when federal law is permissive)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (presumption against preemption where states historically regulate)
- Times‑News Publ’g Co. v. State of N.C., 124 N.C. App. 175 (1996) (NC law: Public Records Act construed liberally; records are presumptively public)
- Empire Power Co. v. N.C. Dep’t of E.H.N.R., 337 N.C. 569 (1994) (statutes in pari materia should be harmonized)