An Act To Amend Title 14 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Disclosure Of Student Records.
HB95 amends Delaware education law to restrict when student records may be disclosed to immigration enforcement agencies or immigration enforcement agents. Under the bill, schools, the Department of Education, and operators that hold digital student data must first obtain authorization from the Delaware Attorney General before releasing student records to immigration enforcement, unless the disclosure is made pursuant to a judicial warrant. The bill defines key terms such as school, student, guardian, and student record, and applies to public schools, charter schools, vocational-technical schools, and other state- or locally funded programs, as well as operators handling digital student data.
The authorization process is detailed and requires a written request with at least 72 hours’ notice, the name of the agency requesting the records, the reason for the request, and a description of the records sought, the individuals affected, and how privacy will be protected. The bill also creates a private right of action for students or guardians whose information is disclosed in violation of the law, allowing them to seek injunctive relief, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees. In effect, the bill adds a state-level review layer before student information can be shared with immigration authorities.
HB95 would add new restrictions to Title 14 of the Delaware Code governing disclosure of student records and student data. It would require schools, the Department of Education, and covered data operators to seek Delaware Attorney General approval before sharing records with immigration enforcement, except when a judicial warrant exists. The bill also exposes violators to civil liability, which could change disclosure practices, increase compliance obligations, and strengthen privacy protections for students and guardians.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a student privacy and immigration-related safeguard rather than a controversial administrative change. The sponsor list suggests broad legislative support at introduction, including multiple House members and a Senate sponsor. No committee transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials, so there is no documented debate or recorded opposition in the context supplied.
The main point of contention likely concerns the balance between student privacy and immigration enforcement access to records. Supporters would view the bill as protecting students and families from unauthorized disclosure and limiting local discretion, while critics could argue it creates additional procedural hurdles for schools and data operators and may interfere with cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The bill’s requirement for Attorney General authorization, its 72-hour notice process, and the private right of action are the most likely areas of dispute.