Krakauer v. State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Higher Education
381 P.3d 524
Mont.2016Background
- Jon Krakauer, a Colorado journalist, sought disciplinary records from the Montana Commissioner of Higher Education concerning a named University of Montana student alleged to have committed rape; the Commissioner denied the request citing FERPA and Montana law.
- Krakauer relied on documents previously unsealed by a U.S. District Court (Doe v. Univ. of Mont.) and requested Commissioner records about the Commissioner’s handling of the University Court and presidential review in July–August 2012.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to Krakauer and ordered release/inspection of responsive records with identifying information redacted; the Commissioner appealed.
- The Montana Supreme Court considered standing, FERPA and § 20‑25‑515, MCA, and the constitutional right-to-know (Mont. Const. art. II, § 9) balancing against student privacy (art. II, § 10) and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held out-of-state requestors may invoke Montana’s right-to-know, found the requested records fall within FERPA’s personally identifiable information protections, and required an in camera review and renewed constitutional balancing before any release; attorney-fee award vacated for reconsideration on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Mont. Const. art. II, § 9 | Krakauer: "person" includes nonresidents; he may invoke right-to-know | Commissioner: only Montana citizens intended beneficiaries | Court: "person" plain text includes out-of-state requestors; Krakauer has standing |
| FERPA bars release of named student’s records | Krakauer: FERPA is spending-conditions statute, doesn’t outright forbid state release; exceptions apply | Commissioner: FERPA prohibits release of education records identifying a student; risk to federal funds | Court: Records qualify as FERPA-protected; FERPA’s judicial-order/subpoena exception applies but requires proper process and notice |
| Applicability of § 20‑25‑515, MCA | Krakauer: statute only requires subpoena; judicial order suffices | Commissioner: statute prohibits release absent student consent or court/subpoena | Court: statute protects student privacy but permits disclosure after court/tribunal legal process; an order post-process satisfies statute |
| Constitutional balancing (public right-to-know v. student privacy) | Krakauer: public interest in university handling of sexual-assault complaints outweighs privacy; student’s privacy expectation diminished | Commissioner: student has enhanced, legislatively protected privacy in education records; redaction may be futile when record targets a named student | Court: because student-record privacy is legislatively and federally strengthened, district court must perform an in camera review and reapply the two-part expectation/reasonableness balancing before any release; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Schoof v. Nesbit, 373 Mont. 226, 316 P.3d 831 (Mont. 2014) (clarifies standing and injury analysis under Mont. Const. art. II, § 9)
- Shockley v. Cascade Cnty., 376 Mont. 493, 336 P.3d 375 (Mont. 2014) (addresses intercounty public‑records requests and related standing issues)
- Great Falls Tribune Co. v. Day, 289 Mont. 155, 959 P.2d 508 (Mont. 1998) (articulates two‑part privacy balancing test for right‑to‑know cases)
- United States v. Miami Univ., 294 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 2002) (treats federal spending‑condition statutes as contract‑like and authorizes enforcement of grant conditions)
- Cut Bank Pioneer Press v. Board of Trustees, 337 Mont. 229, 160 P.3d 482 (Mont. 2007) (discusses FERPA’s application to university records and limits of redaction)