Introduction

The case of DTH Media Corporation, Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc., the Charlotte Observer Publishing Company, and the Durham Herald Company v. Carol L. FOLT, addressed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in 2020, delves into the intricate interplay between state public records laws and federal privacy statutes. The plaintiffs, comprising several prominent North Carolina-based news organizations, sought access to disciplinary records of students at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) who were found to have violated the university's sexual assault policies. The defendants, in their official capacities, invoked the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to withhold these records, arguing that federal law preempted state disclosures.

At the heart of the dispute was whether UNC-CH, as a public institution, was mandated by the North Carolina Public Records Act to disclose certain disciplinary records, despite the privacy protections afforded by FERPA. The Supreme Court of North Carolina ultimately affirmed the lower court's decision that FERPA did not preclude the disclosure of specific information, thereby reinforcing the state's commitment to transparency in public records.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of North Carolina examined whether UNC-CH was required to release disciplinary records of students accused of sexual misconduct under the North Carolina Public Records Act, notwithstanding FERPA's privacy protections. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' unanimous decision that certain aspects of these records must be disclosed. Specifically, the court held that while FERPA provides privacy protections for educational records, it does not extend to the name of the student, the nature of the violation, and the sanctions imposed, provided these disclosures align with FERPA's exceptions.

The defendants argued that releasing such records would undermine the confidentiality and effectiveness of Title IX processes and potentially re-traumatize victims. However, the court concluded that the North Carolina Public Records Act's mandate for transparency did not conflict with FERPA, as the disclosure was limited to information explicitly permitted under federal law. Consequently, UNC-CH was required to release the names of responsible students, details of violations, and sanctions imposed, while withholding more sensitive information like the dates of offenses.

The dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ervin and Earls, contended that FERPA grants UNC-CH discretion to withhold such records and that state law should not override this federal discretion. However, the majority found that state law did not preempt federal law in this context, especially since FERPA did not explicitly prohibit the specified disclosures.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key legal precedents and statutory provisions to support its decision:

• Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA): Central to the case, FERPA governs the privacy of student education records. The court scrutinized specific sections, notably 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(6)(B) and 34 C.F.R. § 99.31, to determine the scope of permissible disclosures.
• North Carolina General Statutes (N.C.G.S.): The North Carolina Public Records Act (N.C.G.S. §§ 132-1 to -11) was pivotal in establishing the state's intent to promote transparency in public records.
• Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.: This Supreme Court case involving federal preemption doctrine was referenced to assess whether federal law (FERPA) preempted state law (Public Records Act).
• Miami University: Cited to illustrate the limitations of field preemption and the circumstances under which state laws can coexist with federal statutes.
• Times-News Publishing Co. v. State of N.C.: Provided context on the liberal construction of the Public Records Act to ensure broad access to public records.

Legal Reasoning

The court engaged in a meticulous statutory interpretation, balancing the mandates of the North Carolina Public Records Act against the privacy protections of FERPA. The primary considerations included:

• Statutory Intent: The court emphasized understanding the legislative intent behind both the state and federal statutes, aiming to harmonize their provisions where possible.
• In Pari Materia: Recognizing that the Public Records Act and FERPA address similar subject matters, the court construed them together to ascertain compatibility and potential conflicts.
• Preemption Doctrine: The court analyzed whether FERPA preempted the Public Records Act. It concluded that there was no conflict preemption since compliance with both statutes was possible, and the Public Records Act did not obstruct the purposes of FERPA.
• Discretion Under FERPA: While acknowledging that FERPA does grant institutions discretion regarding record disclosures, the court found that this discretion did not absolve public institutions from state mandates to disclose certain information.

The court ultimately determined that the Public Records Act's requirement to disclose specific disciplinary records did not infringe upon FERPA's provisions, as the disclosures were within the exceptions permitted by FERPA.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent for public educational institutions in North Carolina, reinforcing the state's commitment to transparency while delineating the boundaries of federal privacy protections. Key impacts include:

• Transparency in Higher Education: Universities must navigate the dual obligations of maintaining student privacy under FERPA and complying with state public records requests, ensuring that only information permitted by federal law is disclosed.
• Legal Precedence: The decision clarifies the application of federal preemption doctrine in cases where state and federal laws intersect, particularly in the context of educational records and public accountability.
• Policy Formulation: Educational institutions may need to revise their record-keeping and disclosure policies to align with the clarified legal obligations, potentially affecting how disciplinary actions are documented and reported.
• Future Litigation: The ruling provides a framework for similar cases, offering guidance on how courts may balance state transparency laws with federal privacy statutes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment involves several complex legal concepts, which can be distilled as follows:

• FERPA: A federal law protecting the privacy of student education records. It restricts the disclosure of identifiable information without consent, but includes exceptions for certain disclosures.
• North Carolina Public Records Act: A state law ensuring public access to government records, promoting transparency. It defines what constitutes a public record and outlines the process for requesting and obtaining these records.
• Preemption Doctrine: A legal principle where federal law overrides state law when both regulate the same subject matter. It includes express preemption (clear intent by federal law to override state law), field preemption (federal law occupies an entire field), and conflict preemption (compliance with both state and federal law is impossible or state law obstructs federal objectives).
• In Pari Materia: A principle of statutory interpretation where laws on related subjects are interpreted together to harmonize their provisions and ascertain legislative intent.
• Discretion Under FERPA: FERPA grants educational institutions the discretion to decide whether to disclose certain information, balancing privacy with other considerations like safety and compliance with other laws.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of North Carolina's decision in DTH Media Corporation v. Folt underscores the delicate balance between transparency and privacy in the realm of educational records. By affirming that state public records laws can coexist with federal privacy protections, the court has reinforced the principle that public institutions must uphold both accountability to the public and respect for individual privacy rights. This ruling not only clarifies the obligations of public universities under conflicting statutes but also sets a blueprint for how similar conflicts may be navigated in the future, ensuring that the public's right to information does not unduly infringe upon personal privacy protected by federal law.