Supreme Court

23-0023 - Univ. of Tex. at Austin v. Gatehouse Media Tex. Holdings, II, Inc. 

Univ. of Tex. at Austin v. Gatehouse Media Tex. Holdings, II, Inc.

  • Case number: 23-0023
  • Legal category: Administrative Law
  • Subtype: Public Information Act
  • Set for oral argument: October 1, 2024

Case Summary

The issue in this case is whether the Texas Public Information Act gives the University of Texas discretion to withhold information concerning the results of disciplinary proceedings.

Gatehouse Media sent a Public Information Act request to the University, seeking the results of disciplinary proceedings in which the University determined that a student had been an “alleged perpetrator” of a violent crime or sexual offense and committed a violation of the University’s rules or policies. The University declined to provide the information, asserting that the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 does not require this information’s disclosure.

Gatehouse filed a petition for mandamus in the trial court, seeking to compel the disclosure. Gatehouse then moved for summary judgment, claiming that while FERPA makes the University’s disclosure of disciplinary information discretionary, the mandatory‑disclosure requirements of the PIA revoked the University’s discretion, requiring disclosure here. The trial court granted Gatehouse’s motion, finding that the information was presumed subject to disclosure because the University failed to seek an opinion from the Office of the Attorney General, as the PIA requires. The court of appeals affirmed.

The University filed a petition for review, arguing that disclosure of the requested information is discretionary under both state and federal law. Additionally, the University contends that past opinions from the Attorney General and this Court render such an opinion unnecessary in this case. The Supreme Court granted the petition.

 

Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.