October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1073
Does federal privacy law ban students from grading each other's homework?
Schools argue peer grading is a teaching tool, not a record. Parents claim it violates student privacy rights.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Richardson argued the core issue is whether Congress banned peer grading.
Mr. Kneedler stated FERPA regulates records maintained by institutions, not classwork.
Mr. Wright cited Senator Buckley's 1974 statement about teacher consent.
Mr. Wright noted the principal admitted students cheat when exchanging papers.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 29-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 29-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 5-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The law protects student education records. The dispute centers on whether peer grading creates such records.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 29-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 29-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-19
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 27, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 5-7
What each side wants
The school district wants to keep using peer grading in classrooms.
The parents want the court to ban peer grading of student work.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 29-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 29-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-19
What each side says
The district argues FERPA regulates institutional records, not classroom activities.
The parents argue Congress intended to prohibit sharing student work without consent.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 29-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 29-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-19
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted after the arguments concluded.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 5-7
Why it matters
Teachers rely on peer grading to manage large classes. Students face privacy risks if their work is shared. The outcome defines the boundary between classroom practice and federal privacy law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 29-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 29-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-19
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 5-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 29-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 29-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 29-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 29-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-19
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.