Cases & Developments

Opinion Reversing in Part and Affirming in Part. Plaintiff, a graduate of Boise State University, brought due process claims against the university after her degree was revoked for misconduct during a required internship. The District Court found in favor of the university, determining that plaintiff was afforded sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard and that she failed to allege a property interest in her university education. On appeal, the Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s substantive due process claim, reasoning that the university’s decision to revoke the degree was “not substantively arbitrary [or] lacking a rational basis.” However, the court reversed its dismissal of her procedural due process claim, calling the revocation “procedurally infirm.” The court held that because plaintiff had an ascertainable monetary value in her degree and further had “a legitimate claim of entitlement” to her degree under Idaho law, the university improperly denied her procedural due process rights when it revoked her degree without any notice or hearing.  

Memorandum Decision and Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a graduate of Boise State University, brought due process claims against the University after her degree was revoked for misconduct during a required internship. After she graduated with a B.A. in Social Work, passed a licensing exam, and became a licensed social worker, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare informed the University that plaintiff had accessed without authorization confidential records pertaining to child protection cases involving individuals she knew personally. As a result, the University changed her internship grade from Pass to Fail, updated her transcripts, cancelled her degree, and sent a revised transcript to the state Board of Social Work Examiners. After the court declined to extend a temporary restraining order, the University proceeded to a Student Conduct Hearing that found plaintiff responsible for the misconduct and sanctioned her with degree revocation and expulsion. In granting the University’s motion to dismiss, the court held that plaintiff failed to allege a property interest in her University education because she cited no state law conferring such a right. It further held that even assuming both a property interest and that the actions were disciplinary in nature, the University’s conduct hearing and subsequent appeal process afforded her sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard.