Gonzaga University v. Doe

Last updated
Gonzaga University v. Doe
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 24, 2002
Decided June 20, 2002
Full case nameGonzaga University and Roberta S. League, Petitioners v. John Doe
Docket no. 01-679
Citations536 U.S. 273 ( more )
122 S. Ct. 2268; 153 L. Ed. 2d 309; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4649; 70 U.S.L.W. 4577; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5458; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 6859; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 436
Case history
PriorOn writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington. Doe v. Gonzaga Univ., 143 Wn.2d 687, 24 P.3d 390, 2001 Wash. LEXIS 381 (2001)
Holding
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act's nondisclosure provisions created no personal rights to enforce under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
ConcurrenceBreyer (in judgment), joined by Souter
DissentStevens, joined by Ginsburg
Laws applied
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the federal government from funding educational institutions that release education records to unauthorized persons, does not create a right which is enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [1]

Contents

Background

A Gonzaga University undergraduate sued the school and teacher Roberta League under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. The student was planning to become an elementary teacher upon graduation, and under Washington State Law, all new teachers required an affidavit of good moral character from their graduating college. The teacher in charge of certifying such affidavits, League, overheard a student conversation discussing sexual misconduct by the undergraduate student. Subsequently, League launched an investigation into the matter, and refused to certify the student's necessary affidavit of good moral character. The student sued, claiming a violation of his confidentiality rights.

Decision of The United States Supreme Court

In a 7–2 decision for Gonzaga University, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion for the court. The Supreme Court held that Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act's nondisclosure provisions created no personal rights to enforce under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act prohibits "the federal funding of educational institutions that have a policy or practice of releasing education records to unauthorized persons". 536 U.S. at 276. The court reasoned that this does not grant any personal rights to enforce under the civil rights provisions of § 1983, since the statute only addresses federal funding. [2] [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act</span>

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 is a United States federal law that governs the access to educational information and records by public entities such as potential employers, publicly funded educational institutions, and foreign governments. The act is also referred to as the Buckley Amendment, for one of its proponents, Senator James L. Buckley of New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Separate but equal</span> Legal doctrine used for racial segregation in the United States

Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law, according to which racial segregation did not necessarily violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which nominally guaranteed "equal protection" under the law to all people. Under the doctrine, as long as the facilities provided to each "race" were equal, state and local governments could require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be segregated by "race", which was already the case throughout the states of the former Confederacy. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate".

Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the statutory damages provision of the Privacy Act of 1974.

New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which established the standards by which a public school official can search a student in a school environment without a search warrant, and to what extent.

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the abortion law of Georgia. The Supreme Court's decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Individuals with Disabilities Education Act</span> United States law

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a piece of American legislation that ensures students with a disability are provided with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that is tailored to their individual needs. IDEA was previously known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) from 1975 to 1990. In 1990, the United States Congress reauthorized EHA and changed the title to IDEA. Overall, the goal of IDEA is to provide children with disabilities the same opportunity for education as those students who do not have a disability.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), was a 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers. The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even if the vouchers could be used for private religious schools.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education of undocumented immigrant children in the United States and an independent school district's attempt to charge an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each student to compensate for lost state funding. The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their immigration status must be examined under a rational basis standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial government interest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National security letter</span> US government administrative subpoena

A national security letter (NSL) is an administrative subpoena issued by the United States government to gather information for national security purposes. NSLs do not require prior approval from a judge. The Stored Communications Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and Right to Financial Privacy Act authorize the United States government to seek such information that is "relevant" to authorized national security investigations. By law, NSLs can request only non-content information, for example, transactional records and phone numbers dialed, but never the content of telephone calls or e-mails.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974</span> Civil rights law of the United States

The Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 1974 is a federal law of the United States of America. It prohibits discrimination against faculty, staff, and students, including racial segregation of students, and requires school districts to take action to overcome barriers to students' equal participation. It is one of a number of laws affecting educational institutions including the Rehabilitation Act (1973), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Julie K. Underwood is a former dean of the University of Wisconsin School of Education and is the first woman to lead UW's School of Education as dean. She served in her role as dean of UW's School of Education from August 2005 to July 2015.

Information technology law concerns the law of information technology, including computing and the internet. It is related to legal informatics, and governs the digital dissemination of both (digitized) information and software, information security and electronic commerce aspects and it has been described as "paper laws" for a "paperless environment". It raises specific issues of intellectual property in computing and online, contract law, privacy, freedom of expression, and jurisdiction.

On the subject of liability and student records in the United States there are various pieces of legislation at the local, state, and federal level that dictate the legal liability of any organizations or persons handling student data in an educational context. This article discusses that in the scope of the United States, and in the scope of educational institutions and their proxies in the handling of student data for children under 19.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld an Arizona state law suspending or revoking business licenses of businesses that hire illegal aliens.

Undocumented youth in the United States are young people living in the United States without U.S. citizenship or other legal immigration status. An estimated 1.1 million undocumented minors resided in the U.S. as of 2010, making up 16% of the undocumented population of 11 million. Undocumented students face unique legal uncertainties and limitations within the United States educational system. They are sometimes called the 1.5 generation, as they have spent a majority of their lives in the United States.

Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case where the majority ruling, written by Justice Harlan, asserted that the burden of showing a lack of factual controversy rests upon the party asserting the summary judgment. It was later challenged by Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (1986), but the case was not officially overruled. While the issue before the Supreme Court was a fairly technical matter, the subject matter regarded the violation of white teacher Sandra Adickes' civil rights in the segregated South, after being refused service at a restaurant because she wished to eat with her black students.

Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination "on the basis of sex" in educational programs and activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government. The Obama administration interpreted Title IX to cover discrimination on the basis of assigned sex, gender identity, and transgender status. The Trump administration determined that the question of access to sex-segregated facilities should be left to the states and local school districts to decide. The validity of the executive's position is being tested in the federal courts.

Privacy in education refers to the broad area of ideologies, practices, and legislation that involve the privacy rights of individuals in the education system. Concepts that are commonly associated with privacy in education include the expectation of privacy, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Fourth Amendment, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Most privacy in education concerns relate to the protection of student data and the privacy of medical records. Many scholars are engaging in an academic discussion that covers the scope of students’ privacy rights, from student in K-12 and even higher education, and the management of student data in an age of rapid access and dissemination of information.

The education policy of the United States is the set of objectives and acts of the federal government to support education in the United States. The federal government has limited authority to act on education, and education policy serves to support the education systems of state and local governments through funding and regulation of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. The Department of Education serves as the primary government organization responsible for enacting federal education policy in the United States.

Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to private enforcement of Spending Clause statutes. It relates to whether third parties can initiate lawsuits against public institutions for violations of Congressional spending bills under claims of Section 1983, which was established to protect individual rights from constitutional violations from public institutions.

References

  1. 1 2 Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002).
  2. "Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe - 536 U.S. 273 (2002)". The Oyez Project. Retrieved 16 October 2013.