Document: 536 U.S. 273 GONZAGA UNIVERSITY ET AL.v.DOE. No. 01-679. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued April 24, 2002. Decided June 20, CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON As a student at petitioner Gonzaga University, private educational institution in Washington State, respondent planned to become public elementary schoolteacher that State after graduation. time required all new teachers obtain an affidavit good moral character from their graduating colleges. Petitioner League, Gonzaga's teacher certification specialist, overheard one tell another had engaged sexual misconduct. League then launched investigation; contacted state agency responsible for certification, identifying by name and discussing allegations; and, finally, told him he would not receive his affidavit. Respondent sued court under, inter alia, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging violation Family Educational Rights Privacy Act 1974 (FERPA), 20 1232g, which prohibits federal funding schools have policy or practice permitting release students' education records without parents' written consent. A jury awarded compensatory punitive damages on FERPA claim. The Appeals reversed relevant part, concluding does create individual rights thus cannot be enforced under 1983. Reversing turn, acknowledged give rise cause action, but reasoned nondisclosure provision creates right enforceable Held: Respondent's action is foreclosed because provisions no personal enforce Pp. 278-291. (a) This has never held, declines do so here, spending legislation drafted terms resembling FERPA's can confer rights. directs Secretary Education its other conditions, 1232g(f), establishing office review board investigate, process, review, adjudicate violations, 1232g(g), terminate funds only upon determining recipient school failing comply substantially with any requirement such compliance secured voluntarily, §§ 1234c(a), 1232g(f). In Pennhurst School Hospital v. Halderman, 451 1, made clear unless Congress "speak[s] voice," manifests "unambiguous" intent individually rights, provide basis enforcement id., 17, 28, n. 21. Since Pennhurst, found gave 1983 Wright Roanoke Redevelopment Housing Authority, 479 418, 426, 432, Wilder Virginia Assn., 496 498, 522-523, where statutory explicitly conferred specific monetary entitlements plaintiffs, there was sufficient administrative means enforcing requirements against defendants failed comply. Court's more recent decisions, however, rejected attempts infer Spending Clause statutes whose language did unambiguously Act's beneficiaries. See, e. g., Suter Artist M., 503 347, 363; Blessing Freestone, 520 329, 340, 343. attempt read this line cases establish relatively loose standard finding unavailing. Because provides remedy deprivation "rights ... [Federal] Constitution laws," it broader vaguer "benefits" "interests," may thereunder. Thus, further rejects notion implied are separate distinct cases. To contrary, former should guide determination whether statute confers Although question through different inquiry involved particular statute, Wilder, supra, 508, 9, inquiries overlap meaningful respect — either case must first determined intended right, see Touche Ross & Co. Redington, 442 560, 576. For text phrased persons benefited. E. Cannon University Chicago, 441 677, 692, 13. Once plaintiff demonstrates class persons, California Sierra Club, 287, 294, presumptively Conversely, indication intends suit 278-286. (b) There confidentiality entirely lack sort focused rights-creating critical. speak Secretary, directing "[n]o shall available" "educational institution" prohibited "policy practice," 1232g(b)(1). focus two steps removed interests students parents clearly entitlement Cannon, 690-693. Furthermore, institutional instances disclosure, 1232g(b)(1)-(2), they "aggregate" focus, concerned needs person been satisfied, Blessing, 344. fact institutions avoid termination long as "comply substantially" requirements, also supports fails support suit. S., 335, References 1232g(b)(1) (2) parental consent make out requisite congressional each those references context describing type practice" triggers prohibition. conclusion buttressed mechanism provided violations. expressly authorized "deal violations," investigate 1232g(g). these purposes, created Policy Compliance Office, promulgated procedures resolving complaints about suspected These squarely distinguish aggrieved lacked mechanism. Finally, most Secretary's functions being carried regional offices, order allay concern regionalizing might lead multiple interpretations FERPA, implausible presume nonetheless suits brought before thousands federal- state-court judges. 287-290. 143 Wash. 2d 687, 24 P. 3d 390, remanded. REHNQUIST, J., delivered opinion Court, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, filed concurring judgment, SOUTER, joined, post, p. 291. STEVENS, dissenting opinion, GINSBURG, 293. John G. Roberts, Jr., argued petitioners. With briefs were Martin Michaelson, Charles K. Wiggins, Kenneth W. Masters. Patricia A. Millett States amicus curiae urging reversal. her brief Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney McCallum, Deputy Kneedler, Mark B. Stern, Alisa Klein, Anne Murphy. Beth Brinkmann respondent. Drew Days III Lois Perrin.* Chief Justice Rehnquist Court. 1 presented sue university Rev. Stat. 1979, (1994 ed., Supp. V), (FERPA Act), 88 571, prohibit releasing unauthorized persons. We hold V). 2 Doe undergraduate Spokane, Washington. He graduate teach school. dean college university. October 1993, Roberta "teacher specialist," acts misconduct Jane Doe, female undergraduate. investigation allegations him. learn investigation, information disclosed, until March 1994, when others schoolteacher. 3 (petitioners) court. alleged violations tort contract law, well pendent "unauthorized person" FERPA.1 counts, awarding $1,155,000, including $150,000 $300,000 4 99 App. 338, 992 545 (2000). decision, ordered reinstated. 390 (2001). "FERPA itself action," "gives section 1983." Id., 707-708, 3d, 400. 5 Like below, courts divided enforceability 1983.2 relied same set opinions suggests our area models clarity. therefore granted certiorari, 534 1103 (2002), resolve conflict among lower process ambiguity own opinions. 6 enacted power condition receipt certain relating access disclosure records. withhold conditions. provides: "No available applicable program (or personally identifiable contained therein ...) individual, agency, organization." 7 within Department "investigating, processing, reviewing, adjudicating [the Act]." Funds terminated if determines "is Act]" "cannot voluntary means." 8 contends regime enrolled covered "education records" disclosed student's express But we decline 9 Maine Thiboutot, 448 (1980), six years recognized actions actors Constitution. held plaintiffs could recover payments wrongfully withheld Social Security Act. 4. year later, (1981), claim Developmentally Disabled Assistance Bill 1975 saying: "In pursuant power, typical noncompliance federally imposed conditions rather Federal Government State." 28. 10 11 twice 418 (1987), allowed tenants past overcharges rent-ceiling Public Act, ground "a mandatory [benefit] focusing family income." 430. key spoke "could clearer," ibid., "sufficiently definite qualify Pennhurst." 432. Also significant charged administering "ha[d] procedure complain failures [of welfare agencies] abide provision]." 426. 12 Three 498 (1990), health care providers reimbursement Medicaid provision, much like Wright, plaintiffs. left doubt enforcement, said, pay "objective" providers, 522-523. 13 Our statutes. 347 (1992), Adoption Child Welfare 1980 receiving adoption assistance "plan" "reasonable efforts" keep children foster homes. sought officials claiming efforts made. "in light shed Pennhurst," 358, suit, 14 "Careful examination term `reasonable efforts' least plausibly impose generalized duty individuals, manner reducing eliminating payments]." 363. 15 specific, even statute's principal 357. 16 Similarly, 329 (1997), Title IV-D child-welfare "substantially comply" designed ensure timely payment child support. Five Arizona mothers invoked grounds agencies consistently meet requirements. 17 "Far creating services, simply yardstick measure systemwide performance State's program. look aggregate services satisfied." 343 (emphases original). 18 "the State," than person," emphasized: "[T]o seek redress assert merely law." 340 19 reads claims "benefit" putative Brief 40-46. "rigorous" conflate inferring directly itself, admits exist FERPA. 41-43. authority, points which, says, used define interest See 340-341 ("Congress benefit plaintiff"); 509 (same). Some suggest something less example, forth three "factors" judicial into right: "Congress plaintiff," demonstrate assertedly protected `vague amorphous' strain competence," giving asserted couched mandatory, precatory, terms." 340-341. paragraph, emphasizes laws, actions. 340. confusion led some interpret allowing falls general zone protect; what action. Fueling uncertainty bearing standards discerning appears notion, 508-509, while Suter, 363-364, 21, appear disavow it. 21 now reject permit anything short Section "rights, privileges, immunities laws" Accordingly, authority section. so, 22 statute." 9. determine right. Thus "[t]he [is] definitively answered negative" "statute grants class." 576 (1979). "phrased benefited." recognized, VI Civil 1964 IX Amendments 1972 "with unmistakable benefited 691 (emphasis added).3 explicit terms, suing still show "to just remedy." Alexander Sandoval, 532 275, 286 (2001) added). 23 Plaintiffs burden showing generally supplies vindication 279-281. 1983.4 initial case, purpose "confer[s] persons." 294 (1981). makes obvious sense, since "secured" elsewhere, i. e., independently "secured "[O]ne go `violation 1983' protect anyone anything." Chapman Houston Organization, 600, 617 court's role differ context. Compare Golden Transit Corp. Los Angeles, 493 103, 107-108, (1989) ("[A] based `rights, immunities' plaintiff"), 690, (statute "explicitly included case"). Both require 423 "intended level right"), 289 evince "congressional rights"); ("The who beneficiaries" (citing 690-693, 13)). structure 25 JUSTICE STEVENS disagrees principally separation-of-powers concerns are, view, pronounced opposed Post, 300-301 (dissenting opinion) 509, 9). fail how relations between branches served having apply multifactor balancing test pick choose not. Nor guideposts analysis. Will Michigan Dept. Police, 491 58, 65 ("[I]f alter `usual constitutional balance Government,' intention `unmistakably statute'" (quoting Atascadero Scanlon, 473 234, 242 (1985); citing 465 89, (1984))).5 26 principle mind, begin with, "rights-creating" critical 288-289; Unlike terminology Titles ("[n]o subjected discrimination"), Education, practice." "individual entitlement" said Cannon: 27 "There far reason favor Congress, instead drafting class, ban discriminatory conduct recipients prohibition disbursement practices." 28 ("Statutes regulated individuals `no implication persons'" 294)). 29 practice, disclosure. 1232g(b)(1)-(2) (prohibiting "any added)). Therefore, 343, "whether satisfied," "give rights," Recipient 1234c(a). This, too, unlike part "substantial compliance" regulations. attention subsection (b)(2), subsections (b)(1) (b)(2) essentially same.6 reference reasons expressed repeatedly prior cases, 1983.7 30 chose provisions. violations" 1232g(f) added), "establish designate [a] board" investigating Pursuant provisions, Office (FPCO) act Review Board [and] programs." 34 CFR 99.60(a) FPCO permits suspect file complaints. 99.63. If complaint contains information, will initiate 99.64(a)-(b), notify charge, 99.65(a), request response, 99.65. found, distributes notice factual findings "statement take 99.66(b) (c)(1). mechanism, 280-281, counsel rights.8 31 finally "[e]xcept hearings, none offices" Education. centralized added four months enactment due "concern [FERPA] it, possibly work hardship parents, students, institutions." 120 Cong. Rec. 39863 (1974) (joint statement). Cf. 426 ("Congress' aim decentralized process" added; internal quotation marks omitted)). It judges, result "multiple interpretations" avoid. 32 sum, wishes unambiguous contain language, aggregate, serve primarily direct Education's distribution institutions. They judgment reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 33 ordered. Notes: * Briefs ofamici reversal Illinois et al. James Ryan, Illinois, Joel D. Bertocchi, General, Michael Doyle, Dan Schweitzer, Attorneys respective follows: Pryor Alabama, M. Brady Delaware, Robert Butterworth Florida, Earl I. Anzai Hawaii, J. Joseph Curran, Maryland, Mike Moore Mississippi, Don Stenberg Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa Nevada, David Samson New Jersey, Betty Montgomery Ohio, Hardy Myers Oregon, L. Shurtleff Utah, Christine O. Gregoire Washington, Hoke MacMillan Wyoming; American Association Community Colleges Philip Burling, Stevens, Sheldon Steinbach; Reporters Committee Freedom Press Gregg Leslie, Lucy Dalglish, Bruce Sanford, Goodman. Aaron H. Caplan, Jordan Gross, Steven R. Shapiro Liberties Union amici affirmance. petitioners acted "under color law" purposes respondent's connection state-law 710-711, 401-402 petition certiorari challenged holding, agreed posed paragraph reserved inOwasso Independent Dist. I-011 Falvo, 430-431 (2002). assume deciding disclosures occurred law. CompareGundlach Reinstein, 924 F. 684, 692 (ED Pa. 1996) "no invocation records"), aff'd, 114 1172 (CA3 1997); Meury Eagle-Union Corp., 714 N. 233, 239 (Ind. Ct. 1999) (same), Falvo Owasso I-011, 233 1203, 1210 (CA10 2000) (concluding "violation actionable 1983"), rev'd grounds, (2002); Brown Oneonta, 106 1125, 1131-1132 (CA2 1997) discrimination activity financial assistance" race, color, national origin. 78 252, 2000d ed.) shall, sex, assistance." 86 373, 1681(a) Where include "right- duty-creating language," rarely impute (listing provisions); 288 (existence absence inquiry). rebut presumption "specifically 1983."Smith Robinson, 468 992, 1004-1005, (1984). shut door expressly, "specific evidence itself," "impliedly, comprehensive scheme incompatible 1983," 341 (1997). Middlesex County Sewerage Authority National Sea Clammers 453 questions arise illustrates point well. conclude millions kindergarten ever explicitly. entails assumption, text, resolutely tradition deference local officials,e. 435 (rejecting proposed interpretation "[w]e meant intervene drastic fashion traditional functions"); Regents Univ. Mich. Ewing, 474 214, 226 (1985) (noting "reluctance trench prerogatives institutions"), subjecting them money whenever condition. Subsection part: releasing, providing to, directory "(A) specifying released, release, whom, copy released desired parents." 1232g(b)(2)(A). invokes very awkward "individualized prevent information." 14. That cry individualized, concrete (1990). us use "rights" obligations funds. Seepost, 293-294, 296. "rights," shorthand recipients, Ibid. argument 18-20 (1981) (no "speaks `rights'"), particularly misplaced here Thiboutot declared need comprehensive" offer independent precluding enforcement,Middlesex enforce. whom Souter joins, judgment. 35 ultimate question, bring lawsuit otherwise, intent. my factors helpful indications (1997); 357 (1992); 509-511 (1990); 423-427 (1987). books too many, laws diverse, complex, single legal formula guidance. I not, effect, predetermine outcome majority's "unambiguously" "text structure." ante, 280, 288. 36 At time, believe "school record privacy" mentions considerations find persuasive: phrasing (stating 288, 6, total (in provision) like, 287; related clear, processes, device jurisdiction, 289-290; later insistence national, regional, level, 290. 37 add reason. Much broad nonspecific. defines term, records," (with enumerated exceptions) "those records, files, documents, materials (i) student; (ii) maintained institution." 1232g(a)(4)(A). kind leaves uncertain can, cannot, reveal various kinds information. led, lead, limit, forbid, practices peer grading, evaluations, Hyche, 761 112 (ND Ala. 1991), "honor society" recommendations, Price Young, 580 Ark. 1983), roll call responses "bad conduct" down Tr. Oral Arg. T. 2001, 00-1073, pp. 37-38. And open invariably almost irrespective conflicting importance, common limited circumstances, say, considered young positions trust. 38 Under wanted exclusive both achieve expertise, uniformity, widespread consultation, resulting guidance accompany decisionmaking comparative risk misincentives occasional inappropriate application damages. factor, together majority refers, convinces me intend here. 39 Ginsburg dissenting. 40 ratio decidendi "now you don't" character. times, seems thereby disposing negative answer right," 283. explain studious avoidance title Alternatively, accepting proposition indeed privacy lesser value owners. 290 (requiring more" attempting prove action). why does, indeed, novel craft category second-class misguided. 41 embodies entirety, includes subsections, describe protecting (a)(1)(A) accords inspect children."1 (a)(1)(D) "student applying admission" waive "his access" confidential statements. Two rights: (a)(2) refers students," (c) protects families." (d) attained age 18, accorded student" thereafter extended student. Given describes "family appropriate: entire Of course, stated previously, "blanket approach" V) inappropriate. 344 precise issue 1232g(b).2 parts that, substance, 1232g(b) formulates words, "right 11. plainly meets articulated directed parents; binding States, "couched terms"; "`vague amorphous,'" Indeed, previously plaintiffs' "reasonable" amounts money.3 such, "presumptively 284. 43 1232g(b), deleted). systemic requirement. Rather, "there speaks "student," generally. "protect individuals' limiting transferability consent," 39862 (statement Sen. Buckley), manifest. Moreover, "pattern precondition relief mean Monell York City Servs., 436 658, 690-695 (1978) (authorizing municipal liability municipality's custom" caused individual's rights). 44 alone strong created, bolstered viewing overall Not once acknowledge substantial number surrounding though given provision's meaning discerned legislative enactment," (1992).4 ignoring asserts "entirely lack[s]" 287. "we rights." Ante, 279. making claim, contrasts "individually terminology" characteristic antidiscrimination statutes, discrimination," idealized present cases; rather, ordinarily gives None involving shall" envisioned concluded existed. 3, supra. 45 enforceable" 284, final remains. recognize, "expressly, forbidding recourse impliedly, [actions]." 341. then, mechanisms "comprehensive" "incompatible" explains, 289, authorizes establishment framework, accepts concerning chooses, follow up informing 99.63-99.67 (2001), exceptional adjudication noncomplying institutions, 1234. avenues fall necessary overcome enforceability. Smith Clammers, "unusually elaborate provisions," permitted citizens 13-14. Smith, "carefully tailored" followed review. 1009. contrast, guaranteed formal proceeding review; discretion decision 348, "far Smith," preclude 1983.5 II 46 1974, Courts 1983.6 Nearly reaching agree Circuits.7 overruled decisions amending yet, departs over quarter century settled law Perhaps pernicious disturbing status though, exists purposes. 47 analysis assumed forthrightness stating 283, "[p]laintiffs remedy," Rather straightforward principles, undermined assertions needlessly borrowing place exacting 283-286. By using heightened plaintiffs: "[I]f action." 48 creation sense explained, "reflec[t] concern, grounded separation powers, controls availability remedies statutes." However, imposing framework inquiry, 283-286, necessary: "are case," itself. consistent precedent, always treated separate. ibid.8 49 pertinent mere "precatory terms" obligations, "generalized," "systemwide" duties 343; What specifically Yet exactly points, relying cases: asks judges," 50 true, claims, neatly "overlap trouble referencing precedent exists. Contrary suggestion, necessarily cleanly "right" "cause action" question. discussion 677 (1979), characterizes pertaining Cannon's reasoning "reason 691, "propriety 51 imported context, explaining share "do adopted purports done difference "new" approach "traditionally" used, Blessing: placed obligation asserted. analysis, closely tracks Blessing's factors, examines right's versus systematic thrust. 287-289. 52 places, defining plaintiff's all," 285, 290, collapsed ostensible ("is right" enforceable") one. result, despite statement unwarranted "burden circularly as, essence, enforceable," eroded eviscerated long-established presumptive reading second compared intended. Creating hierarchy novel, blurs long-recognized distinction remedies. nothing clarify jurisprudence. 53 respectfully dissent. following portions 1232g(a)(1)(A) (B) identify After denying children," clarifies pertains student, only" "shall appropriate procedures" granting requests daysIbid. (a)(1)(B) children. 1232g(b)(2) states unless" parents," dictating InWright, claimed "that `reasonable' amount utilities rent [public housing authority] charge." adequate rates" "States participating program." 512. correctly 1983,ante, (1981)), certainly 287 (describing "`rights-creating' language" "critical rights"). arguable rights; "`overall' `specific' Act," 295 page (discussing "stated purpose"). "comprehensive scheme,"Blessing, 341, rebutting 8, concludes trigger additional Yet, imports "enforcement scheme" ("Our [FERPA violations]"). Folding renders rebuttal superfluous. kept rebuts schemes inapposite, 289-290, neither existence instance. SeeFalvo 2000), Tarka Cunningham, 917 890, 891 (CA5 1990); 1131 Fay South Colonie Central Dist., 802 1986)). cite nor circuit high contrary. 278, 2. justify "divided,"ante, cites disagreeing overwhelming position issue. Gundlach 684 1996), 1997), 1999)). unenforceable; 1232 "failed allege Defendants policy," Supp., 692. endorsing frameworksub silentio overrules Wilder. "clear[ly] unambiguous[ly],"

Category: 4