Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) notes Congress's intent to avoid multiple judicial interpretations of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA). Yet like many other courts, the appellate court below interpreted FERPA, holding that courts may use a state Public Records Act (PRA) to impose fines, fees, and penalties against a public school district that refused to provide unredacted copies of school surveillance videos, some of which were used in school disciplinary proceedings. The videos show other involved students whose parents did not consent to their disclosure. Many other courts have held that in like circumstances, disclosure is forbidden.

The questions presented are:

1. Do multiple appellate decisions interpreting FERPA conflict with both Gonzaga and the congressional intent underlying FERPA?

2. Do appellate decisions like this one make state PRAs a substantial obstacle to achieving the congressional intent underlying FERPA?

3. Does it violate the Supremacy Clause of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2, to impose state fines, fees, and penalties on a school district for complying with federal law?

Do multiple appellate decisions interpreting FERPA conflict with both Gonzaga and the congressional intent underlying FERPA?; Do appellate decisions like this one make state PRAs a substantial obstacle to achieving the congressional intent underlying FERPA?; Does it violate the Supremacy Clause of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2, to impose state fines, fees, and penalties on a school district for complying with federal law?