United States v. Miami University Ohio State University, the Chronicle of Higher Education, Intervening

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that although Congress intended to protect disciplinary records from disclosure, it “carefully permitted” schools to release final-results information
• recognizing that “if Congress believed that student disciplinary records were not education records under . . . FERPA, then these sections [addressing disciplinary records and final-results information] would be superfluous.”
• observing that “[u]niversity disciplinary proceedings are not criminal proceedings,” but nevertheless applying the “experience and logic test” to “determin[e] whether a qualified First Amendment right of access attaches”
• observing that “[ujniversity disciplinary proceedings are not criminal proceedings,” but nevertheless applying the “experience and logic test” to “determin[e] whether a qualified First Amendment right of access attaches”
• noting that parties “may still request student disciplinary records that do not contain personally identifiable information. Nothing in the FERPA would prevent the Universities from releasing properly redacted records.”
• noting that “a detailed study of the statute and its evolution by amendment reveals that Congress intends to include student disciplinary records within the meaning of ‘education records’ as defined by the FERPA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).