FILTERS



Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments


  • Date:

    FERPA and PPRA Dear Educator Letter (Mar. 28, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office (the Department) Dear Educator Letter (the Letter) re: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) Compliance. The Letter is directed to Chief State School Officers and Superintendents at primary and secondary educational institutions receiving federal funding and specifically notes priority concerns related to the classification of “gender plans” as well as the classification of death threats made by students against other students. The Letter states that the Department stands with parents in exercising their rights to the full extent of the law and announced a revitalized effort to make FERPA and PPRA the source of proactive, effective checks on schools that try to keep parents in the dark. Finally, the Letter requests that each state primary and secondary educational agency submit documentation no later than April 30, 2025, to provide assurance that the state agency and respective local educational agencies are complying with FERPA and PPRA, regarding the priority concerns. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) | Freedom of Information & Public Record Laws | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Privacy & Transparency

  • Date:

    Better Gov’t Ass’n v. City Colleges of Chi., (Ill. App. Sep. 19, 2024)

    Opinion reversing in part the Circuit Court’s grant of Summary Judgment, and remanding. Plaintiff, the Better Government Association, a non-profit news organization in Chicago, submitted a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for City Colleges of Chicago’s records related to graduation rate. Plaintiff claimed the Colleges willfully violated FOIA by refusing to produce the requested records, which the College withheld or redacted based on its assertion that the records are exempt from disclosure under Section 7(1)(a) of FOIA and protected by FERPA. The Circuit granted judgment in favor of plaintiffs reasoning that the records were not exempt from FOIA as FERPA did not “specifically prohibit” their release. The Illinois Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the Colleges were prohibited by FERPA from releasing students’ personal identifiable information (PII) without consent, and that doing so could imperil their federal funding. The Court thus held that the decision was in error insofar as it found that FOIA compelled the Colleges to produce unredacted records in violation of FERPA. Therefore, the Court reversed and remanded with instructions for the lower court to conduct an in camera review of the materials to ensure that redactions removed all protected PII.   

    Topics:

    Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) | Freedom of Information & Public Record Laws | Privacy & Transparency

  • Date:

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. (La. App. Sep. 19, 2023)

    Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part the judgment of the trial court.  Plaintiff, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), sought a writ of mandamus to compel Louisiana State University to release records that were the subject of eight public records requests PETA filed regarding the care and use of birds in the laboratory of a professor in LSU’s Department of Biological Sciences, including photographic and videographic records.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of PETA on all of the requests.  The Court of Appeals of Louisiana affirmed with respect to records related to the birds’ care, including veterinary care, daily observations, adverse event reports, and disposition records.  The court reversed with respect to the videographic records, holding that footage that had not already been the basis for published findings was protected under an exception to the Public Records Law for records on research on subjects of a patentable or licensable nature. 

    Topics:

    Freedom of Information & Public Record Laws | Privacy & Transparency

  • Date:

    The Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. The Franklin Ctr. For Gov’t & Pub. Integrity (Tex. June 30, 2023)

    Opinion reversing and remanding.  Plaintiff, the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, sued the University of Texas at Austin under the Texas Public Information Act seeking complete access to the documents underlying a report by an external investigator examining whether external pressures influenced admissions decisions at the University.  At issue was whether three sets of documents related to the production of the report, which was always intended for public release, are protected by attorney-client privilege.  After finding that the investigator was employed by the System’s General Counsel as a lawyer’s representative, the Supreme Court of Texas held, first, that drafts of communications to be sent by the System’s General Counsel to University employees that were reviewed by the investigator in preparation for interviews are within the scope of privilege because no mention of those communications appeared in the released report.  It held, however, that the trial court must determine on remand whether the released report disclosed in “significant part” (1) internal communications between System and University lawyers that were subsequently listed in a privilege log and shared with the investigators and (2) typed and handwritten notes created by the investigator based on interviews with System and University employees.  

    Topics:

    Admissions | External Investigations | Freedom of Information & Public Record Laws | Investigations | Privacy & Transparency | Students

  • Date:

    Sullivan v. The Univ. of Wash. (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2023)

    Order granting a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs, members of the University of Washington’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), sought a preliminary injunction to stop the University from releasing their appointment letters, which contained personal identifying information, to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) under Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA). In granting the preliminary injunction based on this Second Amended Complaint, the court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that disclosure would abridge state and federal constitutional rights of personal security and bodily integrity, and information privacy. It also found that plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the form of threats, harassment, or reprisal, and that the balance of hardships and public interest weighed in plaintiffs’ favor. 

    Topics:

    Freedom of Information & Public Record Laws | Privacy & Transparency | Research