Court boosts rights of students accused of sexual misconduct
U.S. Law Review
Students accused of sexual misconduct at public universities have the right to cross-examine accusers at disciplinary hearings, a federal appeals court said Friday in a sweeping decision that will extend to public schools in four states.
The University of Michigan violated the rights of a male student by refusing to allow him or a representative to question witnesses in an alleged incident of sexual misconduct at a "Risky Business"-themed fraternity party, the court said.
A university investigator found insufficient evidence that a student had committed misconduct. But that conclusion was overturned by a campus appeals panel after two closed sessions.
The student, identified in court papers as John Doe, agreed to leave the school in 2016 instead of face expulsion, just 13.5 credits shy of getting a bachelor's degree in business. His attorney said he was made a "scapegoat" by the university to show that it was aggressively responding to complaints.
"If a public university has to choose between competing narratives to resolve a case, the university must give the accused student or his agent an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and adverse witnesses in the presence of a neutral fact-finder," said Judge Amul Thapar, writing for a three-judge panel at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The court overturned a decision by U.S. District Judge David Lawson. The ruling is binding in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky, the four states covered by the 6th Circuit.
"Providing Doe a hearing with the opportunity for cross-examination would have cost the university very little," Thapar wrote. "As it turns out, the university already provides for a hearing with cross-examination in all misconduct cases other than those involving sexual assault."
University spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said the decision was being reviewed.
"This is a very huge victory for the constitutional rights of students," Doe's attorney, Deborah Gordon, said. "Sexual-misconduct proceedings have to be a search for the truth. The University of Michigan, by hiding the ball from both sides, has really done a huge disservice to the entire issue of sexual misconduct on campus. The stakes are so high."
It's unclear what will happen next. But Gordon said her client, who had a 3.94 grade-point average, wants his college degree.
Related listings
-
Court may reconsider ruling on police deadly force measure
U.S. Law Review 08/30/2018The question of whether Washington voters will have their say on a measure designed to make it easier to prosecute police for negligent shootings might not be over after all.One day after ruling that Initiative 940 should appear on the November ballo...
-
Austrian court's approval for spy agency raid was illegal
U.S. Law Review 08/28/2018Judges in Austria say a lower court's authorization for police to raid the offices of the country's domestic intelligence agency was illegal.The regional court in Vienna said Tuesday that the search of the BVT spy agency on Feb. 28 wasn't justified b...
-
Alabama Supreme Court won't move lawsuit against Moore
U.S. Law Review 08/19/2018The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday refused to transfer a defamation lawsuit against former U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore by a woman who says Moore molested her decades ago.The court denied Moore's request to have the case heard in Etowah County in...
USCIS Adjusting Premium Processing Fee
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today it is adjusting the premium processing fee for Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker and Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers beginning on Oct. 1, 2018 to more effectively adjudicate petitions and maintain effective service to petitioners.
The premium processing fee will increase to $1,410, a 14.92 percent increase (after rounding) from the current fee of $1,225. This increase, which is done in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act, represents the percentage change in inflation since the fee was last increased in 2010 based on the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers.
“Because premium processing fees have not been adjusted since 2010, our ability to improve the adjudications and service processes for all petitioners has been hindered as we’ve experienced significantly higher demand for immigration benefits. Ultimately, adjusting the premium processing fee will allow us to continue making necessary investments in staff and technology to administer various immigration benefit requests more effectively and efficiently,” said Chief Financial Officer Joseph Moore. “USCIS will continue adjudicating all petitions on a case-by-case basis to determine if they meet all standards required under applicable law, policies, and regulations.”
Premium processing is an optional service that is currently authorized for certain petitioners filing Forms I-129 or I-140. The system allows petitioners to request 15-day processing of certain employment-based immigration benefit requests if they pay an extra fee. The premium processing fee is paid in addition to the base filing fee and any other applicable fees, which cannot be waived.