816 S.E.2d 518
N.C. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (several North Carolina news organizations) requested UNC–Chapel Hill (UNC‑CH) disciplinary records for students found responsible for rape, sexual assault, or related sexual misconduct (names, offenses, sanctions, and dates since Jan 1, 2007).
- UNC‑CH denied the request, citing FERPA and treating the records as protected educational records; plaintiffs sued under the North Carolina Public Records Act and sought declaratory relief and production.
- Parties stipulated UNC‑CH maintains the requested records; plaintiffs narrowed the request to names, nature of violation, sanctions, and dates.
- The trial court held the records were public records but concluded FERPA §1232g(b)(6)(B) gives institutions discretion to withhold even FERPA‑exempt disciplinary results, denied disclosure for students (but ordered disclosure for employees), and plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and considered FERPA, the NC Public Records Act, and legislative history of FERPA’s 1998 amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether student disciplinary records (names, offenses, sanctions) that FERPA §1232g(b)(6)(B) allows to be disclosed nonetheless may be withheld by a public university as a matter of institutional discretion | FERPA §1232g(b)(6)(B) permits disclosure of final disciplinary results; FERPA does not forbid complying with state public‑records law, so UNC‑CH must produce the listed information | FERPA implicitly grants institutions discretion to decide whether to disclose even those records expressly allowed to be disclosed, so federal law precludes mandatory state disclosure | Court held FERPA does not create such a withholding discretion; UNC‑CH must release the name, violation, and sanction for students found responsible (dates are not disclosed under FERPA) |
| Whether FERPA pre‑empts the NC Public Records Act regarding these records (field or conflict preemption) | Plaintiffs: FERPA’s 1998 amendment intended exempted records to be "subject to the State laws that apply," so no preemption | Defendants: FERPA impliedly preempts state law by occupying the field or by conflict, making state mandatory disclosure impermissible | Court held no express or implied preemption: legislative history and statutory text show Congress left exempted records subject to state law; presumption against preemption not overcome |
| Scope of permissible disclosure under FERPA §1232g(b)(6)(B) | Plaintiffs: request is limited to the information that FERPA allows (name, violation, sanction) | Defendants: argued plaintiffs’ request (including dates) would cause harms, and institution should control disclosure to protect Title IX processes | Court held FERPA permits disclosure of the student’s name, the violation, and sanctions; dates of offenses are not authorized by FERPA and thus need not be disclosed |
| Whether a court order requiring disclosure would expose the institution to FERPA sanctions | Plaintiffs: compliance with a state court order is permitted and §1232g(b)(2)(B) contemplates compliance with judicial orders | Defendants: risk of federal sanction if institution discloses without its own consent | Court held FERPA’s provisions allowing compliance with judicial orders indicate an institution would not be sanctioned for complying with a court order to disclose exempted records; FERPA does not bar a court‑compelled disclosure of the information §1232g(b)(6)(B) authorizes |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (interpreting FERPA as a spending‑clause statute and its enforcement mechanics)
- DTH Publ’g Corp. v. UNC‑Chapel Hill, 128 N.C. App. 534 (state appellate decision recognizing student disciplinary records as FERPA "education records")
- United States v. Miami Univ., 294 F.3d 797 (holding student disciplinary records are education records under FERPA)
- Times‑News Publ’g Co. v. State of N.C., 124 N.C. App. 175 (describing the broad public right of access under the NC Public Records Act)
- Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (example of federal regulation preempting state law where regulation expressly displaced state rules)
- Andrews v. Federal Home Loan Bank, 998 F.2d 214 (Fourth Circuit case on preemption where federal statute expressly allocated authority)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (framework for field preemption and when federal interest precludes state regulation)