POCATELLO, Idaho - s4story -- By Beckett Law Firm | Kristian Beckett, Attorney

In 2023, Idaho legislators passed HB-163, strengthening the rights of Idaho parents to have timely access and visibility into their child's education and health records. Among these protections, the law provides parents the right to request this information and receive these records within five school days, unless another state or federal law delineates a different timeline. On October 15th, 2026 the Idaho Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for an appeal related to one of the first cases, brought under the new law (Idaho Code § 33-6001(3)), challenging a school district (specifically, Soda Springs Joint School District) decision to deny parents these protected rights – asserting the district misapplied a federal education privacy regulation.

The case is being argued before the Court by Boise trial attorney, Kristian Beckett, on behalf of Richard Kollmann, who alleges that the school district violated his parental rights, deliberately delayed release of all records pertaining to his child, and inappropriately invoked federal regulations to delay the release of critical information related to his child's education and health records.

More on S For Story

• Doreen Otaru Releases New Young Adult Novel - Seasons of Blooming
• HLN Consulting Names Lilly Kan as Its First Chief Executive Officer
• BitTitan Accelerates Large-Scale Document Migrations with MigrationWiz
• Clearnetworx Deploys netElastic vBNG, CGNAT And netVision To Power Fiber Expansion Across Colorado's Western Slope
• BREAKING: Teenage Field Guide to Fake Socials

"The foundation of our appeal is simple – the school district cannot infringe on the rights of Idaho parents," explains Mr. Beckett. "The State Legislature was clear – a parent has a right to know what is happening with their child's education and health within five school days, period. The district decided to treat the federal regulation's 45-day maximum as the governing deadline rather than an outer limit."

According to filings in the original trial court proceedings (Case No. CV15-25-0292), the case stems from an incident at the school in Soda Springs School District where Mr. Kollmann's child, who is autistic and nonverbal, lost consciousness during an assembly and suffered an injury to the head. He claims to have only learned about the incident from other concerned students who were asking about his child's condition. "The administrators neglected to inform my client (Kollmann), as is their obligation under the law," Mr. Beckett said. "How would you feel if the Superintendent hid behind bureaucratic rhetoric and semantics rather than produce any documents, records, or information about your child's injuries sustained at school - instead declaring he would do it in 45-days because a federal regulation says he can."

Mr. Kollmann brought the original case to the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District in Caribou County in November of 2025, but that court dismissed the case, holding that "the statutory language governing the dispute was not ambiguous and [Kollmann] had failed to establish that the district violated state or federal law." (Tr. 30:14-21,32:15-22). Mr. Beckett filed an appeal of the dismissal on behalf of his client directly with the Supreme Court, seeking a reversal and remand for further proceedings, including reconsideration to compel the district to act (mandamus relief).

According to briefs filed by the attorneys for the school district, their defense claim is that the original case was rightly dismissed because the five-school-day deadline does not govern this request due to the fact that Idaho law expressly recognizes alternative timelines established under applicable federal law. They assert that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA"), which provides for a maximum of 45 days to provide access to such information, is an example of the "unless a timeline is otherwise delineated in a specific applicable state or federal law" provision in the Idaho statute. Thus, their claim is that the district was within its rights to delay the production of such records until that point. In addition, the district is arguing that Kollmann did not wait until the 45 days had expired before filing suit – asserting other remedies were available.

More on S For Story

• If you thought launching Coh3sion! Cr3at3s Publishing House was the end of the story, think again
• New Book - Napoleon's Long Shadow How French Military Genius Shaped the American Civil War
• ILTexas Liberty High School Welcomes Students to New School Building in Cleveland, Texas
• Creole101 Launches Multilingual Dictionary App with 50,000+ Entries, Vocabulary Games and Haitian Cultural Resources
• Technology Veteran Daniel Hall Releases a Field Guide to Fake Social Media for Teenagers

"We contend that their argument is backwards, and we are appealing to the Supreme Court because we think they will agree with us that the original case was wrongly dismissed and essentially renders Idaho's five-school-day protections ineffective for many ordinary educational-record requests," continues Mr. Beckett. "Yes, the federal statute provides for a maximum of 45 days, but that is the maximum. We feel the State Law and FERPA agree that as soon as a record can be produced, it should be – whether it's 1 day, 5 days, or 45 days. It is our contention that neither the State Law nor Federal statute justifies nor sanctions delaying delivery of these types of records."

Supreme Court Case No. 53530-2025 will be heard at the Bannock County Courthouse, 624 E. Center Street, Pocatello, Idaho, on October 15, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 301. "Because the court is open to spectators, I would not be surprised to see citizens who agree with our client that your rights should not be trampled by bureaucrats hiding behind vague Federal guidelines – waiting until they are forced by the law or a court to respect the rights of parents," concluded Mr. Beckett. "And personally, as a taxpayer in Idaho, I find it to be a gross misuse of state taxpayer money that the district is defending their poor judgment all the way up to the Supreme Court. It's offensive and a real shame."

A final decision from the court is unlikely to come the same day as oral arguments. The Court has not announced when it will issue its decision.