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

OPINION

Intervening Defendant-Appellant The Chronicle of Higher Education {“The Chronicle ”) contests the district court’s grant of summary judgment and subsequent permanent injunction in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee the United States. Specifically, the district court concluded that university disciplinary records were “educational records” as that term is de *803 fined in the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, and that releasing such records and the personally identifiable information contained therein constitutes a violation of the FERPA. The district court permanently enjoined the Defendants-Appellees Miami University and The Ohio State University (“Miami,” “Ohio State,” or collectively “Universities”) from releasing student disciplinary records or any “personally identifiable information” contained therein, except as otherwise expressly permitted under the FERPA. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case was born of a dispute between a university newspaper and the university’s administration. In the spring of 1995, the editor-in-chief of Miami’s student newspaper, The Miami Student (“the paper”), sought student disciplinary records from the University Disciplinary Board (“UDB”) to track crime trends on campus. 1 State ex rel. Miami Student v. Miami University, 79 Ohio St.3d 168, 680 N.E.2d 956, 957 (Ohio 1997). Miami initially refused to release the requested records, but after the editors made a written request pursuant to the Ohio Public Records Act, Ohio Rev.Code § 149.43, for all UDB records from 1993-1996, Miami released the records. Id. Pursuant to the FERPA privacy provisions, however, Miami redacted “from these records the identity, sex, and age of the accuseds [sic], as well as the date, time and location of the incidents giving rise to the disciplinary charges.” Id. The editors were dissatisfied with Miami’s redacted disclosure and subsequently filed an original mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking full disclosure of the UDB records, redacting only the “name, social security number, or student I.D. number of any accused or convicted party.” Id.

A divided Ohio Supreme Court granted the editors a writ of mandamus. Id. at 958. According to the Court, the Ohio Public Records Act “provides for full access to all public records upon request unless the requested records fall within one of the specific exceptions listed in the Act.” Id. The relevant exception in the Miami case “excludes from the definition of public records those records ‘the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law.’ ” Id. (quoting Ohio Rev.Code § 149.43(A)(l)(o)). 2 Relying on a Georgia Supreme Court case, 3 the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that university disciplinary records were not “education records” as defined in the FERPA. Id. at 958-59. The Ohio Court reasoned that, because disciplinary records were not protected by the FERPA, they did not fall within the prohibited-by-federal-law exception to the Ohio Public Records Act. Id. Accordingly, the Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling Miami to provide the records requested by the editors. Id. at 959-60. Miami sought United States Supreme Court review of the Ohio decision, but the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Miami University v. The Miami Student, 522 U.S. 1022, 118 S.Ct. 616, 139 L.Ed.2d 502 (1997).

*804 On the heels of the Ohio Supreme Court decision, The Chronicle> 4 pursuant to the Ohio Public Records Act, made written requests of Miami and Ohio State for disciplinary records amassed during the calendar years 1995 and 1996. Because the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that student disciplinary records were not educational records covered by the FERPA, The Chronicle requested the records with names intact and minimal redaction as required by the Ohio Public Records Act. Upon receipt of the request, and in light of the Ohio Supreme Court decision, Miami contacted the United States Department of Education (“DOE”) and explained that it might not be able to comply with the FERPA. 5 The DOE told Miami that it believed the Ohio Supreme Court was incorrect in holding that student disciplinary records are not “education records” under the FERPA. Declaration of LeRoy S. R'ooker, J.A. at 91. The DOE assured Miami “that the FERPA prohibits the University from releasing personally identifiable information contained in student disciplinary records.” Id.

In December of 1997, Miami complied in part with The Chronicle’s request by providing the newspaper virtually unredacted disciplinary records from November, 1995, and November, 1996. Id. at 92. Miami informed the DOE that it intended to comply with the remainder of The Chronicle’s request. Id. In addition, Miami advised the DOE that it “had adopted a policy of releasing disciplinary records to any third-party requestor.” Id.

In January of 1998, Ohio State confirmed with the DOE that it too had received The Chronicle’s request for all disciplinary records from 1995 and 1996. Id. Ohio State informed the DOE that it already had released unredacted disciplinary records from November, 1995, and November, 1996. Id. Thereafter, Ohio State told the DOE that it intended to comply with the remainder of The Chronicle’s request. Id.

Shortly after the DOE learned that Miami and Ohio State intended to release student disciplinary records containing personally identifiable information without the consent of the student, the United States filed the underlying complaint against the Universities. 6 In the complaint, the DOE sought declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the Universities from releasing student disciplinary records that contain personally identifiable information, except as permitted under the FERPA. The DOE immediately filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin the Universities’ release of student disciplinary records. The district court granted the motion and noted that the parties did not dispute the material facts; therefore, the court was left with a pure question of law.

On February 13, 1998, The Chronicle filed an unopposed motion to intervene and the district court granted the motion. The Chronicle subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the action and a motion to establish an order of procedure. The motion to *805 dismiss contended that the DOE lacked standing to bring this action and that the DOE’s enforcement power was limited to the administrative remedies outlined in the FERPA. The second motion alleged that The Chronicle may dispute certain material facts. The Chronicle requested a reasonable period of time for discovery and the filing of additional affidavits to develop those facts.

The DOE responded to The Chronicle’s motions and filed its own motion for summary judgment. The district court denied The Chronicle’s motion to dismiss and motion for an order of procedure. Determining that the student disciplinary records were “education records” under the FER-PA, the court granted the DOE’s motion for summary judgment and permanently enjoined the Universities from releasing student disciplinary records in violation of the FERPA. 7 This timely appeal followed.

II. THE CHRONICLE’S APPEAL

The Chronicle asserts that the district court should be reversed for several reasons. First, The Chronicle contends that the DOE lacks standing to bring an action seeking injunctive relief and compliance with the FERPA. Second, The Chronicle argues that the district court erred in holding that the FERPA “prohibits” education records disclosure, thereby concluding that education records were not subject to disclosure under the Ohio Public Records Act. Instead, The Chronicle contends that the district court implicitly held that the Ohio public records law was preempted by the FERPA. Third, The Chronicle alleges that the district court erred in holding that student disciplinary records are education records within the meaning of the FERPA. Next, The Chronicle contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment without first permitting discovery to develop a sufficient factual record. Fifth, The Chronicle alleges that the United States had an entirely adequate remedy at law and failed to show irreparable harm; therefore, the district court erred in granting broad permanent injunctive relief. Finally, The Chronicle argues that, to the extent it prohibits disclosure of student disciplinary records, the FERPA violates the First Amendment and the district court failed to recognize that violation. After a recitation of the applicable standards of review and a brief FERPA synopsis, we will address these arguments in turn.

A. Standards of Review

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same standard employed by the district court. Herman Miller, Inc. v. Palazzetti Imports and Exports, 270 F.3d 298, 308 (6th Cir.2001) (citing Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy’s Family Music Center, 109 F.3d 275, 280 (6th Cir.1997)). Summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, this Court views the factual evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Herman Miller, Inc., 270 F.3d at 308 (citing National Enters., Inc. v. Smith, 114 F.3d 561, 563 (6th Cir.1997)). Nonetheless, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla *806 of evidence in support of the [nonmoving party’s] position will be insufficient;” as noted above, the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (emphasis in original).

This Court reviews de novo the district court’s determination of whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the present case while affording due deference to the court’s factual determinations on the issue. See Coyne v. Am. Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir.1999). In addition, we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Walton v. Hammons, 192 F.3d 590, 592 (6th Cir.1999).

The decision to grant a permanent injunction is within the sound discretion of the district court. Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1067 (6th Cir.1998) (citing Wayne v. Village of Sebring, 36 F.3d 517, 531 (6th Cir.1994)). Accordingly, we review a district court’s grant of permanent injunction for abuse of that discretion. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. Tennessee State Bd. of Equalization, 964 F.2d 548, 553 (6th Cir.1992). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact or when it improperly applies the law.” Herman Miller, Inc., 270 F.3d at 317 (citing Christian Schmidt Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 753 F.2d 1354, 1356 (6th Cir.1985)). “An abuse of discretion is defined as a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment.” Id. (citing Pouillon v. City of Owosso, 206 F.3d 711, 714 (6th Cir.2000)).

B. Family Education Rights and Privacy Act

For the last quarter of a century, the FERPA has helped protect the privacy interests of students and their parents. In fact, Congress enacted the FERPA “to protect [parents’ and students’] rights to privacy by limiting the transferability of their records without their consent.” Joint Statement, 120 Cong. Rec. 39858, 39862 (1974). Pursuant to its constitutional spending power, 8 Congress provides funds to educational institutions via the FERPA on the condition that, inter alia, such agencies or institutions do not have a “policy or practice of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein ...) of students without the written consent of [the students or] their parents[.]” 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(l). The Act also provides- that “[n]o funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of releasing, or providing access to, any personally identifiable information in education records,” except as permitted by the Act. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2). 9 Congress also recognizes that, based upon the privacy interests protected by the FERPA, educational institutions may withhold from the federal government certain personal data on students *807 and families. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232L Because Congress holds student privacy interests in such high regard:

the refusal of a[n] ... educational agency or institution ... to provide personally identifiable data on students or their families, as a part of any applicable program, to any Federal office, agency, department, or other third party, on the grounds that it constitutes a violation of the right to privacy and confidentiality of students or their parents, shall not constitute sufficient grounds for the suspension or termination of Federal assistance.

Id. In other words, Congress places the privacy interests of students and parents above the federal government’s interest in obtaining necessary data and records. The Act broadly defines “education records” as “those records, files, documents, and other materials which (i) contain information directly related to a student; and (ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.” 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A).

C. Standing

On appeal, The Chronicle contends that the DOE and the United States 10 do not have standing to bring this suit for injunctive relief because Congress has not conferred such authority upon them, and because they are bound by the administrative remedies enumerated in the Act and its corresponding regulations. Indeed, “[a]gencies do not automatically have standing to sue for actions that frustrate the purposes of their statutes.” Dir. Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, DOL v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 514 U.S. 122, 132, 115 S.Ct. 1278, 131 L.Ed.2d 160 (1995). An agency garners its authority to act from a congressional grant of such authority in the agency’s enabling statute. See Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374, 106 S.Ct. 1890, 90 L.Ed.2d 369 (1986). If Congress does not expressly grant or necessarily imply a particular power for an agency, then that power does not exist. See Walker v. Luther, 830 F.2d 1208, 1211 (2d Cir.1987). Accordingly, we must look to the language of the Act and its enforcement provisions to determine whether Congress intended to provide the DOE with standing to sue for injunctive relief.

The express language of the FERPA provides:

The Secretary shall take appropriate actions to enforce this section and to deal with violations of this section, in accordance with this chapter, except that action to terminate assistance may be taken only if the Secretary finds there has been a failure to comply with this section, and he has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means.

20 U.S.C. § 1232g(f). Standing alone, this singular provision, allowing the Secretary to take “appropriate actions” to enforce this section, arguably may not sufficiently empower the DOE to enforce the FERPA through the courts. Cf. Dir. Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, DOL, 514 U.S. at 132, 115 S.Ct. 1278. Congress did not resign the Secretary’s enforcement power to this sole, imprecise provision. Instead, 20 U.S.C. § 1234c(a) provides that *808 the Secretary may take the following actions when a recipient of funds fails to comply with the FERPA:

(1) withhold further payments under that program, as authorized by section 1234d of this title;

(2) issue a complaint to compel compliance through a cease and desist order of •the Office, as authorized by section 1234e of this title;

(3) enter into a compliance agreement with a recipient to bring it into compliance, as authorized by section 1234f of this title; or

(4) take any other action authorized by law with respect to the recipient.

Id. (emphasis added). We believe that the fourth alternative expressly permits the Secretary to bring suit to enforce the FERPA conditions in lieu of its administrative remedies. The Fifth Circuit held as much when reviewing a similar catch-all enforcement provision in the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. See United States v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 736 F.2d 1039, 1050 (5th Cir.1984) (“We do not mean to imply that a federal agency seeking to enforce ... Section 504 must resort to administrative remedies. The statute expressly states otherwise: an agency may resort to ‘any other means authorized by law’ — including the federal courts.”). The District of Columbia Circuit recognized similar alternatives under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. See National Black Police Ass’n v. Velde, 712 F.2d 569, 575 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 963, 104 S.Ct. 2180, 80 L.Ed.2d 562 (1984) (Title VI “allows the funding agency to effect compliance through funding termination or ‘any other means authorized by law.’ Although fund termination was envisioned as the primary means of enforcement under Title VI, ... Title VI clearly tolerates other enforcement schemes. Prominent among these other means of enforcement is referral of cases to the Attorney General, who may bring an action against the recipient. The choice of enforcement methods was intended to allow funding agencies -flexibility in responding to instances of discrimination.”)(footnotes omitted).

Having reached that conclusion, it follows that the DOE can proceed in equity: a common and “authorized” means to enforce legal obligations. After all, this Court will not lightly assume that Congress has stripped it of its equitable jurisdiction; such departure from equity requires a clear and valid legislative command. See Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754 (1944); Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398, 66 S.Ct. 1086, 90 L.Ed. 1332 (1946).

Even in the absence of statutory authority, the United States has the inherent power to sue to enforce conditions imposed on the recipients of federal grants. “[L]egislation enacted pursuant to the spending power [, like the FERPA,] is much in the nature of a contract: in return for federal funds, the States agree to comply with federally imposed conditions.” Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 451 U.S. at 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531; King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 333 n. 34, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968)(“There is of course no question that the Federal Government, unless barred by some controlling constitutional prohibition, may impose the terms and conditions upon which its money allotments to the States shall be disbursed.”). If Congress imposes a “condition on the grant of federal moneys, it must do so unambiguously;” otherwise, the State cannot “voluntarily and knowingly accept[ ] the terms of the ‘contract.’ ” Id.

Spending clause legislation, when knowingly accepted by a fund recipient, imposes enforceable, affirmative obligations upon the states. See Wheeler v. Barrera, 417 U.S. 402, 427, 94 S.Ct. 2274, *809 41 L.Ed.2d 159 (1974), modified on another ground, 422 U.S. 1004, 95 S.Ct. 2625, 45 L.Ed.2d 667 (1975) (recognizing that states and local agencies must fulfill their part of a spending clause contract if they choose to accept the funds); King, 392 U.S. at 333, 88 S.Ct. 2128; see also South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206-08, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (noting that clearly stated conditions permit a State to be “cognizant of the consequences of their participation”). Finally, the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized a court’s equitable powers to enforce spending clause obligations and conditions under various statutes. See Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 420-22, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442 (1970) (enjoining the implementation of a state welfare program because the state scheme conflicted with the spending clause conditions in federal legislation); Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 451 U.S. at 29, 101 S.Ct. 1531 (listing various equitable remedies for state violations of spending legislation conditions).

“Under FERPA, schools and educational agencies receiving federal financial assistance must comply with certain conditions. One condition specified in the Act is that sensitive information about students may not be released without [the student’s] consent.” Ow asso Independent School District v. Falvo, 534 U.S. 426, 122 S.Ct. 934, 937, 151 L.Ed.2d 896 (2002) (emphasis added). The FERPA unambiguously conditions the grant of federal education funds on the educational institutions’ obligation to respect the privacy of students and their parents. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2) (precluding schools from receiving federal funds if they maintain a policy or practice of disclosing education records without the student’s consent). Based upon these clear and unambiguous terms, a participant who accepts federal education funds is well aware of the conditions imposed by the FERPA and is clearly able to ascertain what is expected of it. See Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 640, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999) (quoting Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 451 U.S. at 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531). Once the conditions and the funds are accepted, the school is indeed prohibited from systematically releasing education records without consent. 11 Based upon the case law discussed above, we believe that, in the alternative to its statutory authority to sue, the United States may enforce the Universities’ “contractual” obligations through the traditional means available at law. If those remedies are inadequate, then the government may seek contractual relief through a court of equity.

Finally, The Chronicle argues that the DOE has no power to prevent future violations of the FERPA because the statute only provides a remedy when the recipient “is failing to comply substantially with any requirement of law applicable to such funds.” 20 U.S.C. § 1234c(a) (emphasis added). The Chronicle contends that because Congress couched violations in the present tense, it did not intend to provide prior restraints such as the permanent injunction granted in this case. We find these grammatical semantics unpersuasive. The administrative remedies outlined in the Act encompass various forms of forward-looking relief, designed to bring straying fund recipients into compliance. According to the enforcement provisions, the Secretary may withhold further payments under the program, compel compli- *810 anee through a cease and desist order, and enter into a compliance agreement. None of these provisions imply a congressional intent to limit prospective relief; to the contrary, it appears that Congress envisioned a broad range of “prior restraint” remedies in the event that fund recipients failed to comport with their spending clause restraints. Accordingly, we hold that the DOE had standing to bring the case at bar.

D. The FERPA, Miami and the Ohio Public Records Act

The Chronicle finds error in the district court’s alleged refusal to respect the Ohio Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Ohio Public Records Act, Ohio Rev.Code § 149.43. The Chronicle contends that, because the Ohio Supreme Court held that disciplinary records are not “education records” as defined by the FERPA, it was unnecessary for the Court to decide whether the FERPA prohibits the disclosure of the requested records within the meaning of Ohio Rev.Code § 149.43. State ex rel. Miami Student, 680 N.E.2d at 958 n. 1. The Ohio Supreme Court noted that “the Ohio Public Records Act is intended to be liberally construed ‘to ensure that governmental records be open and made available to the public ... subject to only a few very limited and narrow exceptions.’ ” Id. at 958. Among those exceptions is a provision that “excludes from the definition of public records those records ‘the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law.’ ” Id. (citing Ohio Rev.Code § 149.43(A)(l)(v)). It follows, according to The Chronicle, that the district court invaded the province of the state court when it implicitly concluded that the FERPA “prohibited” the release of student disciplinary records. In reaching that conclusion, The Chronicle contends that the district court impermissibly broadened the state’s otherwise narrow definition of the term “prohibit.” We find several flaws in The Chronicle’s reasoning.

As an initial matter, The Chronicle concedes that the Ohio Supreme Court never reached the issue of whether the FERPA “prohibited” the release of education records, much less student disciplinary records as a subpart thereof. Instead, the Ohio Supreme Court misinterpreted a federal statute — erroneously concluding that student disciplinary records were not “education records” as defined by the FER-PA — and prematurely halted its inquiry based upon that erroneous conclusion. We decline to speculate how the Ohio Supreme Court might otherwise have resolved this issue. Furthermore, whether the release of a particular record is prohibited by federal law necessarily implicates the interpretation of that federal law. The State of Ohio clearly recognized that necessity when it exempted from its definition of public records those records the release of which is prohibited by federal law. Ohio Rev.Code § 149.43(A)(l)(v). The prohibition finds its root in the federal law, not the Ohio Public Records Act. Accordingly, to the extent that the district court concluded that the FERPA prohibited the release of education records, it did so on federal grounds. 12

*811 In this case, the United States sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Universities under the FERPA. Specifically, the United States asked the district court to determine whether student disciplinary records were “education records” as defined by FERPA. If the district court concluded, as it did, that student disciplinary records were “education records,” then the United States also sought an injunction prohibiting the Universities from releasing student disciplinary records. The issues before the district court were of federal genesis and required no application of state law.

The Ohio Public Records Act and the Miami case were neither explicitly nor implicitly affected by the district court decision. As noted above, the Ohio Public Records Act does not require disclosure of records the release of which is prohibited by federal law. Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43(A)(l)(v). Based on that exception, the Ohio Public Records Act does not conflict with the FERPA and the state and federal statutes can coexist. Furthermore, the Miami case expressly adjudicated the relationship between two parties: Miami University and the editors of The Miami Student. See State ex rel. Miami Student, 680 N.E.2d at 957. We assume that the rights and responsibilities established in that case were satisfied long ago. Unlike the case at bar, the editors in the Miami case permitted Miami to redact significantly the student disciplinary records prior to disclosure and, in its mandamus, the Ohio Supreme Court expanded the list of items that Miami could redact. Id. at 959. After concluding that student disciplinary records were not “education records,” the Court still permitted Miami to redact the following “personally identifiable information” in accord with the FERPA: the student’s name; Social Security Number; student identification number; and the exact date and time of the alleged incident. Id. With these court-imposed redactions, the mandamus appears to comport with the FERPA’s requirements. See id. at 960 (COOK, J. dissenting).

In the case sub judice, The Chronicle seeks records fraught with personally identifiable information and virtually untainted by redaction. Given the vast difference in the records sought by The Chronicle, it is by no means clear that the Miami case would support, without exception, the release of those records.

Finally, the district court was not bound by the Ohio Supreme Court’s interpretation of “education records” under the FERPA. While federal courts must defer to a State court’s interpretation of its own law, Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949), federal courts owe no deference to a state court’s interpretation of a federal statute, Kuhnle Brothers, Inc. v. County of Geauga, 103 F.3d 516, 520 (6th Cir.1997) (“Notions of federalism do not require this court to follow a State court’s holdings with respect to federal questions.”).

Because the district court’s conclusions were based entirely on federal law, and the federal law does not conflict with state law, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that preemption is not implicated in this case.

E. Student Disciplinary Records, Education Records and the FERPA

The Chronicle argues that the district court erred in concluding that student disciplinary records are “education records” within the contemplation of FERPA. The Chronicle states that there is no evidence that Congress ever intended the FERPA to protect records other than those records relating to individual student academic performance, financial aid or scholastic probation. In addition, The Chronicle contends that student disciplinary records involving criminal offenses *812 should be construed as unprotected law enforcement records. Otherwise, the FERPA affords “special” privacy rights to students that the general public does not enjoy.

As noted above, we review de novo issues of statutory interpretation. Walton, 192 F.3d at 592. “We read statutes and regulations with an eye to their straightforward and commonsense meanings.” Henry Ford Health Sys. v. Shalala, 233 F.3d 907, 910 (6th Cir.2000). “When we can discern an unambiguous and pl