In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________

No. 02-3837 JOSEPH SLOVINEC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

DEPAUL UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 01 C 576—Charles R. Norgle, Sr., Judge. ____________ SUBMITTED JUNE 5, 2003—DECIDED JUNE 18, 2003 ____________

Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Joseph Slovinec holds a master’s degree in history from DePaul University. He also has attended DePaul’s School of Education, completing all courses but not the required student teaching, and DePaul’s School of Law, completing the first year. He owes DePaul about $80,000 in student loans (guaranteed by the federal govern- ment), loans that he is not retiring because he cannot ob- tain full-time employment. In this suit Slovinec contends that DePaul violated his rights under state and federal law by (a) not providing letters of recommendation that might assist him in obtaining employment (DePaul insists that Slovinec first waive any right to see the contents of these 2 No. 02-3837

letters), and (b) either loaning him too much money for his earning capacity, or not doing enough to help him obtain employment to pay down the debt. The former is said to vio- late the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. §1232g, and the latter the Higher Edu- cation Act of 1965 (HEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1070-1155. Slovinec’s complaint narrates many additional grievances against persons other than DePaul; we limit our attention to the only defendant. The district court concluded that neither the FERPA nor the HEA creates a private right of action and dismissed the complaint. 222 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Ill. 2002). The court relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over all state-law theories, enabling Slovinec to pursue them in state court. DePaul is a private university, so Slovinec cannot use 42 U.S.C. §1983, and the approach of Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980), to enforce these federal statutes. He needs some other grant of authority. The Supreme Court held in Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), that the FERPA does not authorize suits by private persons, as op- posed to the federal government. As for the HEA: three courts of appeals have held that this statute does not create a private right of action. See Labickas v. Arkansas State University, 78 F.3d 333 (8th Cir. 1996); Parks School of Business, Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484-85 (9th Cir. 1995); L’ggrke v. Benkula, 966 F.2d 1346 (10th Cir. 1992). The Court’s approach to the FERPA in Gonzaga shows that Labickas, Parks, and L’ggrke are correctly decided. The HEA, like the FERPA, is a funding statute, attaching condi- tions to grants, scholarships, and guarantees underwritten by the national government. Congress provided in each statute for enforcement by the national government, and in the HEA for enforcement against the Secretary of Ed- ucation as well. See 20 U.S.C. §1082(a)(2). Neither statute authorizes litigation by a private plaintiff against anyone No. 02-3837 3

other than the Secretary. If the Secretary is not doing his job in holding recipients to the conditions of federal sup- port, then complaint should be made of the Secretary and may be renewed in court if the Secretary declines to act and if the would-be plaintiff has standing. See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985). As long as the Secretary believes that DePaul is respecting the terms on which it receives or distributes federal aid, the only potential avenue of relief is a suit against the Secretary under §1082(a)(2). AFFIRMED

A true Copy: Teste:

________________________________ Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

USCA-02-C-0072—6-18-03