Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe

United States Supreme Court
536 U.S. 273 (2002)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For a federal statute enacted under the Spending Clause to create a personal right enforceable through a § 1983 action, Congress must manifest an unambiguous intent to confer such a right through text that is phrased with an unmistakable focus on the benefited class.

Facts:

John Doe was an undergraduate student at Gonzaga University, a private university, and planned to become a public elementary school teacher in Washington.
Washington state law required new teachers to obtain an affidavit of good moral character from a dean at their graduating university.
Roberta League, Gonzaga's teacher certification specialist, overheard a student claim that Doe had engaged in sexual misconduct.
League initiated an investigation into the allegations against Doe.
During her investigation, League contacted the state agency responsible for teacher certification, identified Doe by name, and discussed the allegations against him.
Gonzaga officials later informed Doe that he would not receive the affidavit of good moral character required for his teacher certification.

Procedural Posture:

John Doe sued Gonzaga University and Roberta League in Washington state trial court, alleging a violation of FERPA through § 1983, among other state law claims.
A jury found in favor of Doe and awarded him compensatory and punitive damages on the FERPA claim.
Gonzaga and League (appellants) appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment on the FERPA claim, concluding the statute does not create individual rights enforceable under § 1983.
Doe (appellant) appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
The Washington Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and reinstated the jury's damage award for the FERPA violation.
Gonzaga University and League (petitioners) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), which prohibits federal funding of educational institutions with a policy of improperly releasing student records, create a personal right that is enforceable in a private action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist

No, FERPA does not create a personal right enforceable in a private action for damages under § 1983. To determine whether a statute confers a right enforceable under § 1983, courts must use the same initial inquiry as in implied right of action cases, which requires finding that Congress unambiguously intended to create an individual right. FERPA's text lacks such rights-creating language; it is phrased as a directive to the Secretary of Education ('No funds shall be made available') and focuses on the aggregate 'policy or practice' of an institution, not on protecting individuals from specific violations. This institutional focus is two steps removed from the interests of individual students. Furthermore, Congress established a centralized administrative enforcement mechanism through the Department of Education, suggesting this was the intended remedy, not private lawsuits, which could lead to multiple conflicting interpretations.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Yes, FERPA creates a personal right enforceable under § 1983. The majority mistakenly collapses the § 1983 inquiry into the more stringent implied right of action analysis; the two should be distinct because § 1983 itself provides the remedy. FERPA's text, including its title ('Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act'), is replete with explicit rights-creating language, referring to the 'right to inspect and review' and 'the privacy rights of students.' The nondisclosure provision creates a clear, mandatory, and specific individual right to withhold consent, which is presumptively enforceable under § 1983. The statute's administrative enforcement scheme is not sufficiently comprehensive to rebut this presumption of enforceability.

Concurring - Justice Breyer

No, Congress did not intend to create a privately enforceable right under FERPA, but the majority's rigid, formulaic test is inadvisable. The ultimate question is one of congressional intent, which is informed by several factors. Here, the statute's phrasing, its focus on institutional policy, the absence of 'rights' language in the specific provision at issue, and the centralized administrative enforcement scheme all indicate Congress did not intend to allow private lawsuits. Additionally, FERPA's key terms are broad and nonspecific, and allowing private damage actions would risk inconsistent judicial interpretations of common school practices, which is a problem better suited for expert, uniform administrative guidance.

Analysis:

This decision significantly heightened the standard for finding a privately enforceable right in a federal spending statute under § 1983. By merging the initial inquiry with the more restrictive test for implied rights of action, the Court requires Congress to use explicit, 'rights-creating' language focused on the individual, rather than merely intending to 'benefit' a group. This ruling curtails the ability of individuals to sue for damages for violations of federal funding conditions, shifting enforcement power from private litigants to federal administrative agencies. Future plaintiffs in § 1983 cases based on statutory violations must now demonstrate that the statute's text unambiguously confers a personal entitlement, making such claims much more difficult to sustain.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature