Wallace L. Hall, Jr., in His Official Capacity as a Regent for the University of Texas System v. William H. McRaven, in His Official Capacity as Chancellor for the University of Texas System
508 S.W.3d 232
| Tex. | 2017Background
- Regent Wallace Hall sought access to unredacted student-admissions records reviewed by Kroll Associates during an external investigation of UT Austin admissions practices.
- Chancellor William McRaven refused full access, proposing a two-step process: produce records redacted for FERPA/HIPAA/other privacy laws, and allow targeted requests for specific redacted items subject to review.
- The UT Board of Regents voted to endorse McRaven’s two-step process and amended Regents’ Rules to delegate FERPA determinations to the Chancellor and to require a board majority for unresolved access requests.
- Hall sued McRaven in his official capacity, seeking declaratory and mandamus relief alleging McRaven acted ultra vires by misapplying FERPA and unlawfully withholding records.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on sovereign-immunity grounds; the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed, holding Hall failed to show McRaven acted ultra vires.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hall) | Defendant's Argument (McRaven/UT) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars Hall’s suit | Hall: ultra vires exception applies because McRaven had no authority to withhold unredacted records or misapply FERPA | McRaven: actions were within delegated authority under Regents’ Rules; sovereign immunity bars suit | Held: sovereign immunity bars suit because Hall failed to plead ultra vires act |
| Whether Chancellor was the proper official (proper-party/horizontal selection) | Hall: McRaven is proper nominal defendant for actions attributable to UT and Board | McRaven: ultra vires relief must target the officer who had the relevant duty; Board actions and rules limit Hall’s claim | Held: McRaven was a proper defendant only for his own delegated duties (FERPA determinations); broader challenges to Board policy were improper against McRaven |
| Whether McRaven’s interpretation/misapplication of FERPA is an ultra vires act | Hall: any legal misinterpretation of FERPA that deprives a regent of access is beyond McRaven’s authority | McRaven: Section 5.4.6 gives him discretionary authority to determine whether law restricts disclosure; errors in applying collateral law do not automatically become ultra vires | Held: erroneous interpretation of collateral law (FERPA) is not ultra vires here because Section 5.4.6 granted unconstrained discretion to interpret federal privacy law |
| Whether failure to perform a ministerial duty occurred | Hall: withholding records amounted to failure to perform regent-access obligations | McRaven: duty to determine legal restrictions was discretionary, not purely ministerial | Held: no ministerial duty was shown; claim fails on this ground as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. 2016) (clarifies when an official’s misinterpretation of law can constitute acting “without legal authority” for ultra vires purposes)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (explains ultra vires suits against state officers and their limits)
- Univ. of Hous. v. Barth, 403 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. 2013) (Regents’ Rules have effect equivalent to legislative enactment)
- Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Emmett, 459 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. 2015) (defines ministerial duties for ultra vires analysis)
- Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (discusses sovereign immunity rationale protecting public treasury)