The new rule said, “[T]he Chancellor, in consultation with the U.T. System General Counsel, shall determine whether State or federal law restricts compliance with the request. Accordingly, the Chancellor, in consultation with the U. T. System General Counsel, shall determine whether a Regent may review information that is protected by [FERPA].”
Hall again requested full access to the records and cited a list of arguments claiming he had a “legitimate educational interest” in the records.
These arguments failed to sway McRaven, who again denied Hall’s request. McRaven did offer Hall a two-step process for reviewing the records. First, the chancellor’s office would redact all information protected by FERPA and other privacy laws. Second, if Hall identified specific private information he wanted to see, the UT System’s general counsel could review that request.
Hall did not agree to that process and sued McRaven for access to the records. Hall alleged that McRaven acted ultra vires, or outside his authority, in refusing to provide the unredacted information.
Notably, the board of regents held a special meeting a few weeks later regarding Hall’s lawsuit. In a vote on July 8, 2015, a majority of the board endorsed McRaven’s two-step offer of access.
McRaven then filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming that sovereign immunity barred Hall’s lawsuit and an ultra vires exception did not apply.
Hall replied with a motion for summary judgment, claiming a right to the unredacted records since he was a regent.
The trial court granted McRaven’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the case. The appeals court later affirmed the dismissal. The Texas Supreme Court then granted Hall’s petition for review.
In looking at McRaven’s conduct and Hall’s ultra vires claims, Justice Devine noted such claims depend on the scope of a state official’s authority.
“[T]he specific responsibilities of Chancellor McRaven—which are of utmost importance to this lawsuit—come from the rules and resolutions of the Board, which we consider in the context of this dispute between the System’s Chancellor and one of its regents,” he wrote in the 19-page ruling.
Devine explained, “An ultra vires claim based on actions taken ‘without legal authority’ has two fundamental components: (1) authority giving the official some (but not absolute) discretion to act and (2) conduct outside of that authority. The proper-party plea by a state official is another way of saying a higher power has deprived the official of all of his or her discretion. In other words, the higher authority has created a ministerial (nondiscretionary) duty for the subordinate official to engage in conduct the plaintiff claims is wrongful.”
The Texas Supreme Court’s decision hinged on whether the board’s July vote took away McRaven’s discretion. Hall argued it did not.
“We agree, at least with respect to a narrow course of action: the Chancellor’s interpretation of federal privacy law,” Devine wrote. “On July 8, the Board endorsed McRaven’s two-step offer of access. The first of those steps, as characterized by the Board, left in place the understanding that questions of law relating to FERPA would remain ‘as determined applicable’ by the Chancellor’s office.”
But Hall argued for an unfettered right to access the records, further claiming that FERPA does not apply to a regent’s request for information he thinks is necessary to fulfill his job.
“If Hall is right about those legal questions, the Board has restricted that right in two ways. First, the Board amended Section 5.4.5 of Rule 10801 to require a majority of regents to approve a request for information. Second, the Board created a governance scheme in which the Chancellor’s discretionary determination of federal law can lead to redactions of information,” Devine wrote. “These are concrete limits on Hall’s claimed right to complete access. But they are limits imposed by the Board—not McRaven. Hall did not explicitly challenge these rules in his ultra vires suit…Because Hall chose to sue McRaven, his complaint must necessarily be a limited one: McRaven made an allegedly incorrect determination under FERPA and that erroneous interpretation resulted in an unlawful redaction of records.”
The court held that McRaven’s alleged misinterpretation of FERPA did not constitute an ultra vires act.
“Here, McRaven’s interpretation is not of his organic authority but rather federal privacy law—a law collateral to McRaven’s authority,” the ruling states. “When the ultimate and unrestrained objective of an official’s duty is to interpret collateral law, a misinterpretation is not overstepping such authority; it is a compliant action even if ultimately erroneous.”
McRaven’s authority gave him absolute discretion to interpret the federal privacy law, Devine said.
“As such, McRaven—whether right or wrong—was not without legal authority in making that determination,” the judge wrote. “Nor was he without authority in redacting information once he made the legal conclusion. The Board instructed him to redact information he determined protected under FERPA, and he did just that.”
The Texas Supreme Court similarly ruled that McRaven did not violate a purely ministerial duty in denying Hall’s records requests.
Hall’s failure to meet either of the bases for establishing an ultra vires action means the case was properly dismissed, Devine said.
In closing, the court showed Hall some sympathy.
“[T]he Board has instituted a governance structure that leaves Hall at the mercy of the Chancellor’s discretionary legal determination, at least in the first instance. Perhaps that scheme is unwise. Perhaps it elevates the status quo above transparency. Perhaps it increases the likelihood that voices in the minority will be stifled. And perhaps it presents none of those dangers,” the opinion states. “But those questions are beyond our reach; the Legislature is the ultimate arbiter of policy at The University of Texas.”
Justices Don Willett, Eva Guzman, Debra Lehrmann and Jeff Brown each delivered concurring opinions.
Chancellor McRaven said in a statement that he is “pleased that the courts confirmed that my actions complied with the authority granted to me by the Board of Regents.”
“I understand that it is important for a governing board to have access to certain information to perform its duties, but I must also ensure that The University of Texas System strictly complies with privacy requirements created by state and federal law,” he said.
Hall’s six-year term on the UT Board of Regents ended Wednesday. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has already named a replacement, and the Senate Nominations Committee will vote soon on whether to confirm the new regent.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.