## Facts

- A student newspaper sought Miami University disciplinary board records to report campus crime trends; the university released records but heavily redacted information that could identify students.
- The Ohio Supreme Court later ruled those disciplinary records were not FERPA “education records” and ordered broader disclosure under Ohio’s public-records law with limited redactions.
- The Chronicle of Higher Education requested student disciplinary proceeding records from Miami University and Ohio State University with minimal redactions consistent with the Ohio ruling.
- The universities advised the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) they intended to comply with the state-law disclosure approach.
- DOE asserted FERPA barred disclosure of personally identifiable information in disciplinary records and warned that disclosure risked loss of federal funding.
- The United States sued for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent disclosure inconsistent with FERPA; The Chronicle intervened, opposing the federal position and asserting access rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the United States, through DOE and the Attorney General, may sue in federal court for injunctive relief to enforce FERPA compliance.
2. Whether student disciplinary records are “education records” under FERPA and thus protected from disclosure absent consent or an applicable exception.
3. Whether FERPA overrides state public-records requirements that would compel broader disclosure of disciplinary records.
4. Whether the First Amendment provides a right of public access to student disciplinary proceedings or records that limits FERPA-based nondisclosure.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States and upheld the permanent injunction.
- The court held the United States had authority to seek prospective injunctive relief to prevent imminent FERPA violations, notwithstanding FERPA’s administrative funding-termination mechanism.
- The court held student disciplinary records are “education records” because they directly relate to identifiable students and are maintained by the universities.
- The court approved enjoining disclosure of disciplinary records and personally identifiable information except as FERPA expressly permits, despite contrary state public-records obligations.
- The court rejected the asserted First Amendment right of access because disciplinary proceedings and records lacked a historical tradition of openness and public access would not play a significant positive role in their functioning.

## Legal Principles

- FERPA “education records” include records directly related to a student that are maintained by an educational institution, encompassing student disciplinary records.
- The federal government may pursue injunctive relief to enforce conditions attached to federal education funding when necessary to prevent statutory violations.
- When FERPA applies, educational institutions receiving federal funds may be barred from disclosures that state public-records law would otherwise require.
- The First Amendment right of access applies only where both historical openness and functional value of access are shown; student disciplinary records do not satisfy that test.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that FERPA protects student disciplinary records as education records, permitted the United States to enforce FERPA through injunctive relief, and concluded that neither state public-records law nor a claimed First Amendment access right justified disclosure of personally identifiable disciplinary information contrary to FERPA.


United States v. Miami Univ., 294 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 2002)