Discretion, Not Mandate: Texas Supreme Court Holds Universities May Withhold FERPA‑Authorized Disciplinary Records Without Attorney‑General Review

Discretion, Not Mandate: Texas Supreme Court Holds Universities May Withhold FERPA‑Authorized Disciplinary Records Without Attorney‑General Review

I. Introduction

This commentary analyzes the Supreme Court of Texas’s decision in The University of Texas at Austin and Jay Hartzell, in His Official Capacity as Interim President of the University of Texas at Austin v. GateHouse Media Texas Holdings II, Inc., d/b/a Austin American-Statesman, No. 23‑0023 (Tex. Dec. 31, 2024).

At the heart of the case is the intersection between:

  • The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, which protects the privacy of student education records as a condition of federal funding; and
  • The Texas Public Information Act (PIA), Tex. Gov’t Code ch. 552, which embodies Texas’s strong policy favoring governmental transparency and public access to information.

The Austin American-Statesman newspaper sought disclosure of the “final results” of disciplinary proceedings at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) involving allegations of crimes of violence or nonforcible sex offenses, in which UT found that a student had violated university rules. FERPA expressly permits (but does not require) such disclosures. The central questions were:

  1. Does the PIA require UT to disclose those disciplinary “final results” simply because FERPA permits their disclosure?
  2. Was UT required to seek an opinion from the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) before withholding those records?

The trial court and a divided court of appeals ordered UT to disclose the records, reasoning that UT’s failure to timely request an OAG decision triggered a presumption of openness. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, rendered judgment for UT, and in doing so established two important principles:

  • The PIA does not mandate disclosure of education records merely because FERPA allows disclosure; and
  • Texas universities are not required to seek an OAG decision before withholding FERPA‑governed education records under the statutory framework at issue.

These holdings substantially clarify how FERPA and the PIA interact, and they significantly affect public access to campus disciplinary outcomes, especially in cases involving serious student misconduct such as sexual offenses or violent crimes.

II. Summary of the Opinion

A. Factual Background

  • On August 30, 2019, the executive editor of the Austin American-Statesman, on behalf of its parent company GateHouse Media, submitted a Texas PIA request to UT’s president and CFO.
  • The request sought the “final results” of all disciplinary proceedings since January 1, 2014, in which a UT student was alleged to have committed a crime of violence (including forcible sex offenses) or a nonforcible sex offense, and UT determined that the student violated university rules or policies.
  • The request tracked FERPA’s language and explicitly limited the requested information to:
    • the student’s name;
    • the violation committed (including rules violated and essential findings); and
    • the sanction imposed (including description, date, and duration).
  • On September 16, 2019, UT responded that FERPA “does not require” disclosure of responsive student information and that UT declined to disclose it. UT did not request a decision from the Attorney General before refusing disclosure.

B. Procedural History

  1. Trial court:
    • The Statesman filed a mandamus action under PIA § 552.321 to compel disclosure.
    • Both parties moved for traditional summary judgment.
    • The trial court held:
      • UT was required to seek an OAG decision under § 552.301;
      • UT’s failure triggered a presumption under § 552.302 that the information was public absent a compelling reason to withhold; and
      • No compelling reason justified withholding, so it ordered production.
    • The trial court, however, denied the Statesman’s request for attorney fees, finding UT relied on a plausible interpretation of the PIA.
  2. Court of appeals (El Paso – Eighth District):
    • A divided panel affirmed the order to disclose.
    • The majority:
      • Read Gov’t Code § 552.114(b) as not giving UT discretion to withhold the requested records when FERPA authorizes disclosure;
      • Concluded UT, having failed to seek an OAG decision, did not show a “compelling reason” to withhold under § 552.302; and
      • Held the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Statesman attorney fees.
    • Dissent (Justice Alley):
      • Focused on both § 552.026 and § 552.114;
      • Concluded FERPA merely permits disclosure of final results and does not require it;
      • Read § 552.026 (“except in conformity with FERPA”) as meaning Texas law requires disclosure only when FERPA requires it; and
      • Concluded UT had discretion to withhold and was not obligated to seek an OAG decision.
  3. Supreme Court of Texas:
    • Granted UT’s petition for review.
    • Reversed the court of appeals.
    • Rendered judgment for UT (thus rejecting mandamus and mooting the attorney-fee issue).

C. Core Holdings

  1. No mandatory disclosure of FERPA‑eligible “final results.”
    • PIA § 552.026 provides that Chapter 552 “does not require the release of information contained in education records … except in conformity with FERPA.”
    • FERPA’s final‑results provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(6)(B), permits but does not require disclosure.
    • Accordingly, the PIA does not impose a duty on UT to disclose those records; UT retains discretion to disclose or withhold them.
  2. No requirement to seek an Attorney General decision.
    • PIA § 552.301(a) requires a governmental body to seek an OAG decision only if it wishes to withhold information that it considers within an exception in Subchapter C.
    • UT withheld records under § 552.026, which is in Subchapter B, so § 552.301 is not triggered.
    • Separately, § 552.114(d) allows educational institutions to redact student‑record information without OAG review, and in practice OAG does not review unredacted education records due to federal FERPA guidance.
    • Thus UT was not required to request an OAG decision before withholding the records.

III. Detailed Analysis

A. Statutory Framework

1. FERPA

FERPA’s core mechanism is financial: it conditions federal education funding on institutions’ compliance with student privacy protections. Two aspects are central here:

  • Education records: broadly include all records that:
    • contain information directly related to a student; and
    • are maintained by an educational agency or institution.
  • General rule: Federal funds may not be made available to institutions having “a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records” without consent, subject to specified exceptions.

Among the exceptions, one is critical here:

  • Final results of certain disciplinary proceedings – 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(6)(B)–(C):
    • An institution of postsecondary education may disclose to any third party the “final results” of a disciplinary proceeding if:
      • the proceeding arose from an allegation that a student committed a “crime of violence” or a “nonforcible sex offense”; and
      • the institution determines that the student committed a violation of its rules or policies with respect to that allegation.
    • “Final results” are limited to:
      • the name of the student;
      • the violation committed; and
      • any sanction imposed.
    • The name of a victim or other student may be included only with that student’s written consent.

Critically, the statute is framed in permissive terms: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an institution … from disclosing the final results…” FERPA thus creates an authorization, not a disclosure mandate.

2. The Texas Public Information Act (PIA)

The PIA begins with a broad policy of transparency:

  • The public is “entitled, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees” (Gov’t Code § 552.001(a)).
  • The Act “shall be liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information” (§ 552.001(b)).

However, that default of openness is mediated through a structured system of:

  • Public information subject to mandatory disclosure (§ 552.021, § 552.221);
  • Information “excepted” from mandatory disclosure (various exceptions, many in Subchapter C); and
  • “Confidential” information that is categorically prohibited from disclosure and whose disclosure may lead to criminal penalties (§ 552.101, § 552.352).

The Court relies on a recognized framework—drawn from Justice Wainwright’s dissent in Tex. Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Attorney General, 354 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2010)—that the PIA creates three categories of information:

  1. Information that is required to be disclosed;
  2. Information that is excepted from mandatory—but not voluntary—disclosure; and
  3. Information that is confidential and may not be disclosed at all (subject to criminal liability).

Section 552.007 further clarifies that, unless information is confidential or disclosure is “expressly prohibited by law,” a governmental body may still voluntarily disclose information even if it is “excepted” from mandatory disclosure.

3. FERPA-Specific PIA Provisions

There are two key PIA provisions specifically addressing education records:
a. Section 552.026: “Education Records” and FERPA
“This chapter does not require the release of information contained in education records of an educational agency or institution, except in conformity with [FERPA].”

This is a global rule, placed in Subchapter B, that governs how the entire PIA operates with respect to FERPA‑covered education records. It expressly subordinates the PIA’s disclosure duty to FERPA’s requirements.

b. Section 552.114: “Confidentiality of Student Records”

Section 552.114 is in Subchapter C (exceptions) and is titled “Exception: Confidentiality of Student Records.” It:

  • Defines “student record” to include:
    • an “education record” as defined by FERPA, and
    • information in an applicant’s record.
  • Subsection (b) (two sentences) provides:
    • First sentence: student‑record information at state‑funded educational institutions is “confidential and excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021.”
    • Second sentence: “This subsection does not prohibit the disclosure or provision of information … if the disclosure or provision is authorized by FERPA or other federal law.”
  • Subsection (c) then mandates disclosure in four specific circumstances (upon request of:
    • educational institution personnel,
    • the student or the student’s parent/guardian/spouse,
    • a child-abuse investigator,
    • or certain applicants and their parents under subsection (e)).
  • Subsection (d) provides that, except as provided by subsection (e), an educational institution:
    “may redact information covered under Subsection (b) from information disclosed under Section 552.021 without requesting a decision from the attorney general.”

The interpretive fight in the court of appeals—and the main doctrinal issue the parties briefed—centered on whether the second sentence of § 552.114(b) turns FERPA‑authorized disclosures into PIA‑required disclosures or merely permits, but does not compel, disclosure.

4. OAG Decision Process and Mandamus

a. Requesting an Attorney General decision – § 552.301

A governmental body that wants to withhold information it believes is covered by a Subchapter C exception must:

  • “ask for a decision from the attorney general” as to whether the information is within that exception; and
  • do so within 10 business days of receiving the request, stating the exceptions that apply.

If it fails to comply with § 552.301:

  • § 552.302 presumes the information is subject to public disclosure and “must be released unless there is a compelling reason to withhold” it.
b. Enforcement – § 552.321 mandamus

A requestor or the Attorney General may file suit for mandamus if:

  • the governmental body refuses to request an OAG decision, or
  • refuses to release public information or information that OAG has determined is not excepted.

Venue lies in a district court in the county where the governmental body’s main offices are located.

B. Precedents and Authorities Cited

1. Tex. Comptroller v. Attorney General (2010)

Although the Court cites the Comptroller decision only via Justice Wainwright’s dissent (354 S.W.3d at 359–60), that dissent is influential. It articulated the now‐accepted taxonomy that the PIA:

  • requires disclosure of some information,
  • excepts other information from mandatory (but not voluntary) disclosure, and
  • makes certain information confidential and nondisclosable.

The Court adopts this framework to clarify how FERPA‑related student records fit into the PIA’s structure. This is crucial because the case turns on whether the requested records fall into the “required,” “excepted,” or “confidential” category—or fall outside any PIA duty to disclose altogether by virtue of § 552.026.

2. Public Utility Commission v. Luminant Energy (2024)

The Court cites PUC v. Luminant Energy Co., 691 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. 2024), to reaffirm its textualist methodology:

  • Statutes are interpreted according to their plain text.
  • Text must be read in context and harmonized within “the context and framework of the entire statute.”

This interpretive lens is decisive here. Rather than reading § 552.114(b) in isolation or privileging the PIA’s pro‑disclosure policy statement, the Court insists on reading § 552.114 in harmony with § 552.026 and the PIA as a whole. This leads the Court to resolve the dispute based primarily on § 552.026.

3. Scalia & Garner, Reading Law

The Court also cites Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner’s Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts for the proposition that a statute’s purpose clause or preamble:

  • may clarify ambiguous text, but
  • cannot expand or override clear operative language.

This undercuts the Statesman’s argument that the PIA’s general policy of liberal construction in favor of disclosure can transform permissive FERPA language and § 552.026’s limitation into a mandatory disclosure requirement.

4. Federal Department of Education Letter (2006) and OAG Handbook

The Court also gives substantial weight to:

  • A 2006 letter from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) to the Texas Attorney General stating that FERPA does not allow Texas educational institutions to disclose education records to OAG (without consent) merely so that OAG can rule on whether they are public under the PIA.
  • OAG’s 2018 Public Information Act Handbook, which reflects DOE’s position and states that OAG will not address FERPA’s applicability to education records submitted for review—those determinations must be made by the educational institution itself.

While not binding law in themselves, these materials inform the Court’s understanding of the practical impossibility of expecting OAG to meaningfully review unredacted education records. This, in the Court’s view, confirms that the PIA cannot reasonably be read to require OAG decisions before withholding such FERPA‑governed records.

C. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Does the PIA require disclosure of FERPA‑authorized “final results”?

a. Section 552.114(b) – the dispute the Court largely sidesteps

Both parties focused on § 552.114(b), and the court of appeals majority’s analysis turned on it:

  • The Statesman and the court of appeals majority argued:
    • The first sentence makes student records “confidential and excepted” from § 552.021.
    • The second sentence, however—“This subsection does not prohibit the disclosure … if authorized by FERPA”—was read as essentially removing confidentiality status when FERPA allows disclosure.
    • On that reading, whenever FERPA permits disclosure, PIA’s general rule of disclosure (§ 552.021) kicks back in and mandatorily requires release.
  • UT argued:
    • “Does not prohibit” cannot sensibly be read as “requires.”
    • The second sentence merely ensures that § 552.114(b)’s confidentiality label does not itself bar disclosure where FERPA authorizes it.
    • Thus § 552.114(b) gives UT discretion, consistent with FERPA, rather than imposing a duty to disclose.

The Supreme Court, however, declines to resolve exactly how § 552.114(b) operates. It holds that the case can be (and should be) resolved on a different provision: § 552.026.

b. Section 552.026 – the controlling provision

The Court emphasizes that statutory text must be read in context, and that the PIA’s framework for education records begins with § 552.026:

“This chapter does not require the release of information contained in education records of an educational agency or institution, except in conformity with [FERPA].”

Two interpretive questions arise:

  1. What does it mean to “require the release” of information?
  2. What does “except in conformity with FERPA” mean?

The Statesman’s argument was effectively that “conformity with FERPA” means “whenever FERPA allows disclosure.” On that view:

  • Because FERPA permits disclosure of final results,
  • the PIA must be read to require such disclosure in order to be “in conformity with” FERPA.

The Court rejects that reading as inconsistent with the plain language:

  • “In conformity with” ordinarily means “in harmony, agreement, or congruity with.”
  • Disclosure that is permitted (but not required) by FERPA is not mandated. Both disclosure and nondisclosure are “in conformity” with FERPA so long as FERPA does not prohibit them.

Thus, when FERPA provides that an institution may disclose final results, but does not require or forbid disclosure, both:

  • disclosing, and
  • refusing to disclose

are equally consistent with FERPA. In that circumstance:

  • The PIA does not require release of the information; and
  • The educational institution retains discretion to disclose or withhold.

In other words, § 552.026 makes clear that:

  • Texas cannot use the PIA to force disclosure in situations where FERPA leaves disclosure optional; but
  • Texas may require disclosure where FERPA requires disclosure (e.g., to a parent) or at least does not prohibit it, and the PIA affirmatively mandates release in some provision.

Here, because FERPA’s 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(6)(B) is permissive, not mandatory, the PIA cannot be read to impose a mandatory disclosure obligation without violating § 552.026’s limitation.

c. The role of the PIA’s policy of liberal construction

The Statesman also relied heavily on § 552.001(b)’s command that the PIA “shall be liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information.” The Court addresses this argument directly:

  • Policy statements and liberal‑construction directives assist in resolving ambiguities but cannot override clear statutory language.
  • Section 552.026 is unambiguous: “this chapter does not require” the release of education records except in conformity with FERPA.
  • To convert FERPA’s “may disclose” language into an unqualified PIA “must disclose” rule would contradict the text of § 552.026.

Thus, the Court refuses to elevate the PIA’s transparency policy over the specific FERPA‑deference command in § 552.026.

d. Resulting rule

The Court crystallizes its holding as follows:

“We hold that Section 552.026 grants an educational institution discretion whether to disclose information in an education record if the disclosure is authorized by FERPA.”

Consequently:

  • The PIA does not require UT to disclose the final disciplinary results sought by the Statesman; and
  • The court of appeals erred in construing the PIA to impose a mandatory disclosure duty based on FERPA’s permissive authorization.

2. Was UT required to seek an OAG decision before withholding?

a. Subchapter C limitation – § 552.301(a)

The PIA’s OAG‑decision requirement in § 552.301(a) is triggered only when:

“a governmental body … wishes to withhold [information] from public disclosure and considers the information to be within one of the exceptions under Subchapter C.”

The Court reasons:

  • UT’s basis for withholding was § 552.026 (education records), which is in Subchapter B, not Subchapter C.
  • If § 552.026 itself means “this chapter does not require the release” of education records (in conformity with FERPA), then UT is not asserting a Subchapter C “exception” but relying on a threshold limitation on the PIA’s reach.
  • Therefore, § 552.301(a)’s text does not apply, and UT is not obligated to request an OAG decision before withholding.

This textual analysis alone suffices to decide the OAG‑duty question in UT’s favor.

b. The alternative argument based on § 552.114(d)

The Court goes further and addresses a second, reinforcing rationale:

  • Assume, arguendo, that UT were withholding based on § 552.114(b)’s confidentiality of student records (a Subchapter C provision).
  • Section 552.114(d) expressly states that an educational institution:
    “may redact information covered under Subsection (b) from information disclosed under Section 552.021 without requesting a decision from the attorney general.”

The Statesman argued that:

  • “Redact” presupposes that the institution is disclosing at least some non‑redacted records under § 552.021; and
  • If UT is disclosing nothing, then § 552.114(d) does not apply, so an OAG decision is required.

The Court acknowledges the intuitive appeal of that reading but ultimately rejects it when considered alongside the rest of the statutory scheme and practical realities:

  • Section 552.301(e) requires the governmental body requesting an OAG opinion to provide OAG with a copy or representative sample of the specific information requested.
  • But the 2006 DOE letter states that FERPA does not allow educational institutions in Texas to disclose education records to OAG (without consent) simply to determine PIA applicability.
  • Since then, OAG has consistently refused to review such records and in practice declines to address FERPA applicability to student records.

Consequently:

  • Even if UT had timely requested an OAG decision, OAG would have refused to review the unredacted records, as it actually did once UT requested an opinion mid‑litigation.
  • OAG’s own letter in response to UT’s request stated that:
    • OAG would not address UT’s § 552.114 argument; and
    • Educational institutions may withhold personally identifiable information in education records without requesting an OAG decision.

In this context, the Court interprets § 552.114(d) as effectively:

  • confirming that educational institutions can independently apply FERPA and student‑record confidentiality; and
  • exempting them from the usual requirement to seek OAG review before redacting (and, functionally, withholding) information covered by § 552.114(b).

The Court sums up:

“In these circumstances, we agree with the University that Section 552.114(d) negates its obligation to seek an OAG decision before withholding information under Section 552.114(b).”

Thus, whether UT relied on § 552.026 or § 552.114(b)/(d), it had no statutory duty to seek an OAG decision.

c. Effect on § 552.302’s “compelling reason” presumption

Because § 552.301(a) does not apply, UT’s failure to timely seek an OAG decision does not trigger § 552.302’s presumption that the information is public absent a compelling reason to withhold. As a result:

  • The trial court’s and court of appeals’ reliance on § 552.302 was misplaced.
  • The Supreme Court has no need to evaluate whether UT had a “compelling reason” to withhold since the presumption never arose.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court avoids the entire “compelling reason” analysis and simply holds UT entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the correct statutory framework.

D. Impact and Implications

1. For Texas public universities and educational institutions

The decision has immediate and practical consequences for every state‑funded educational institution in Texas:

  • Disciplinary “final results” are discretionary, not mandated.
    • Even where FERPA authorizes disclosure of disciplinary final results for crimes of violence or nonforcible sex offenses, Texas law does not require disclosure under the PIA.
    • Institutions may choose to disclose or withhold, subject to FERPA’s minimum protections and any separate policy or political constraints.
  • No PIA duty to disclose FERPA‑governed education records unless FERPA requires disclosure.
    • Under § 552.026, the PIA’s disclosure duty does not independently extend to education records except to the extent FERPA itself requires or at least clearly permits mandatory disclosure.
  • No obligation to seek Attorney General review of FERPA‑covered records.
    • Educational institutions may withhold (or redact) FERPA‑governed education records, including disciplinary records, without first seeking an OAG decision.
    • This reduces the procedural burden and cost of responding to PIA requests involving student records.
  • Increased institutional responsibility.
    • Because OAG will not review FERPA records or second‑guess FERPA determinations, institutions bear sole responsibility for complying with both FERPA and the PIA.
    • Institutions must develop internal legal expertise and protocols to correctly classify and handle education records.

2. For requestors, journalists, and open‑government advocates

The decision significantly narrows the ability of the public and the press to compel disclosure of campus disciplinary outcomes:

  • Requests for student disciplinary outcomes will often be deniable.
    • Universities may now lawfully decline to disclose final results of disciplinary proceedings involving serious offenses, even though FERPA would have permitted such disclosure.
    • Absent a statutory amendment, requestors cannot use the PIA’s mandamus remedy to force disclosure of such information.
  • Attorney’s fees less likely in student‑record disputes.
    • Because the Supreme Court rendered judgment for UT, the Statesman is no longer a “plaintiff who substantially prevails,” which § 552.323(a) requires for fee recovery.
    • Future plaintiffs challenging non‑disclosure of FERPA‑covered records now face a steeper climb both on the merits and with respect to attorney‑fee recovery.
  • Transparency in campus misconduct cases is largely left to institutional or legislative choice.
    • Nothing in the decision prohibits institutions from adopting policies of disclosure (within FERPA’s bounds).
    • But the PIA no longer provides a reliable legal lever to force disclosure of such disciplinary outcomes.

3. For the Attorney General and administrative practice

The decision effectively ratifies OAG’s longstanding position post‑2006 DOE letter:

  • OAG is not expected—and arguably not permitted—to examine unredacted student records to decide FERPA issues.
  • Educational institutions are the primary interpreters and implementers of FERPA within Texas’s open‑records framework.

The Court’s reading of §§ 552.026 and 552.114(d) harmonizes state law with federal FERPA guidance and OAG practice, ensuring institutional FERPA decisions are not undermined by state‑level review mechanisms that federal law does not allow to operate as usual.

4. For statutory interpretation in PIA cases

This decision reinforces several interpretive themes likely to influence future PIA litigation:

  • Contextual reading over single‑provision focus.
    • The Court avoids deciding the meaning of § 552.114(b) in isolation and instead resolves the case based on the broader structural provision in § 552.026.
  • Primacy of clear text over policy directives.
    • The PIA’s pro‑transparency policy does not authorize courts to disregard specific statutory limitations such as § 552.026’s deference to FERPA.
  • Deference to federal conditions on federal funding statutes.
    • Because FERPA is enacted as a condition on federal funding, the Court is cautious about any state law interpretation that could place institutions in tension with federal funding conditions.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. What is FERPA and what are “education records”?

FERPA is a federal law that:

  • Protects the privacy of student education records; and
  • Enforces that protection by conditioning federal education funding on compliance.

“Education records” are broadly defined to cover almost any record maintained by a school or university that directly relates to a student, including:

  • Academic transcripts,
  • Disciplinary records,
  • Financial aid records,
  • Advising notes, etc.

Some limited categories (such as certain law enforcement records) are excluded, but disciplinary records like those at issue here are typically covered.

2. What are “final results” of a disciplinary proceeding under FERPA?

Under 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(6)(B)–(C), “final results” means only:

  • the student’s name;
  • the violation committed (including the relevant rules and essential findings); and
  • the sanction imposed (including its nature, date, and duration).

These are the only components of a disciplinary record that FERPA explicitly allows institutions to release to anyone—even the general public—when:

  • the allegation is a crime of violence or nonforcible sex offense, and
  • the institution determines that the student committed the violation.

FERPA’s language is permissive: schools may release this information, but they are not federally required to.

3. What does it mean that the PIA has “three categories” of information?

Under the PIA, information held by a governmental body generally falls into one of three categories:

  1. Required disclosure – by default, most information about governmental affairs must be disclosed to any requestor.
  2. Excepted from mandatory disclosure – statutes can “except” specific types of information from automatic release. Agencies may choose to release such information but are not required to if an exception applies (unless another law mandates disclosure).
  3. Confidential – some information is statutorily made confidential; agencies generally cannot release it at all (absent specific authorization), and employees may face criminal penalties for wrongful disclosure.

FERPA‑related education records, under this decision, sit in a special position: the PIA does not require their release at all unless FERPA itself demands it; otherwise, release is discretionary.

4. What is a “writ of mandamus” in this context?

A writ of mandamus is a court order compelling a governmental body to perform a legal duty it is required to perform. Under the PIA:

  • A PIA requestor may ask a district court to issue mandamus if a government body improperly refuses to:
    • request an OAG decision when required, or
    • release public information.

In this case, the Statesman sought mandamus to force UT to disclose records. The Supreme Court held that UT had no duty to disclose, and no duty to request an OAG decision, so mandamus was inappropriate.

5. What does it mean that UT did not have to show a “compelling reason” to withhold?

Normally, if a governmental body fails to timely seek an OAG decision under § 552.301, then § 552.302 presumes the requested information is public, and the body must show a “compelling reason” to withhold it—such as a statute making the information confidential or the risk of harm if disclosed.

Here, because:

  • UT was not required to seek an OAG decision at all,
  • the § 552.302 presumption never arose,

so UT never bore the burden of demonstrating a compelling reason. The Court bypassed that issue altogether.

V. Conclusion: Key Takeaways and Broader Significance

  1. FERPA‑authorized does not mean PIA‑mandated.
    • When FERPA allows, but does not require, disclosure of education records (such as disciplinary final results in certain serious cases), Texas’s PIA does not convert that permission into a duty.
    • Section 552.026 ensures that the PIA cannot require release of education records except in a manner consistent with FERPA, and consistency with a permissive standard preserves institutional discretion.
  2. Universities hold the discretion and the responsibility.
    • Texas public universities may decide whether to disclose such disciplinary final results, provided they stay within FERPA’s bounds.
    • These decisions will now be governed largely by institutional policy and political accountability rather than judicially enforceable PIA duties.
  3. No Attorney General decision is required for FERPA‑protected education records.
    • Because UT’s basis for withholding is in Subchapter B (§ 552.026) and because § 552.114(d) authorizes redaction without AG review, universities are not obligated to seek OAG decisions before withholding or redacting FERPA‑governed education records.
    • This aligns Texas practice with the federal DOE’s prohibition on disclosing unredacted education records to OAG solely for PIA review.
  4. Transparency in campus misconduct cases is now discretionary, not enforceable through the PIA.
    • Requestors and journalists cannot compel disclosure of FERPA‑covered disciplinary outcomes by mandamus under the PIA.
    • Any broader disclosure of such records will have to come from:
      • institutional policies voluntarily adopted by universities, or
      • legislative changes that carefully navigate FERPA’s constraints.
  5. Textual fidelity over policy preference.
    • The Court reaffirms a robust textualist approach: general transparency policies and liberal‑construction directives cannot override clear statutory language and structural constraints.
    • Future PIA cases will likely follow this model, reading exceptions and cross‑references holistically rather than elevating the Act’s openness policy over specific textual limitations.

In sum, UT Austin v. GateHouse Media establishes a significant precedent in Texas open‑records law: education records governed by FERPA occupy a semi‑autonomous space where the PIA’s default of disclosure is curtailed by federal privacy requirements and by the legislature’s express deference to those federal rules. The decision firmly places the choice to disclose sensitive campus disciplinary outcomes in the hands of educational institutions and the legislature, not the courts, and it delineates the boundaries of judicially enforceable transparency in this sensitive arena.

Case Details

Comments