ANN ARBOR (AP) — A federal court won’t reopen a major decision that gives University of Michigan students the right of cross-examination during disciplinary hearings related to allegations of sexual misconduct.
The university asked the full appeals court to set aside the Sept. 7 opinion of a three-judge panel and hear the case again. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday there’s no interest.
It means the September decision will remain binding on public colleges in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky, states covered by the 6th Circuit.
A student identified as John Doe said the University of Michigan violated his rights during an investigation of alleged sexual misconduct. Doe denied the allegations but agreed to leave school in 2016 instead of face expulsion.
The appeals court says the university violated Doe’s rights by refusing to allow him or a representative to question witnesses or the accuser.
- Posted October 16, 2018
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Ruling stands for students accused of misconduct

headlines Macomb
- Macomb County Meals on Wheels in urgent need of volunteers ahead of holiday season
- MDHHS hosting three, free virtual baby showers in November and December for new or expecting families
- MDHHS secures nearly 100 new juvenile justice placements through partnerships with local communities and providers
- MDHHS seeking proposals for student internship stipend program to enhance behavioral health workforce
- ABA webinar November 30 to explore the state of civil legal aid in America
headlines National
- This Is the Moment
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- BigLaw partner won’t charge his $3,250 hourly rate to defend New Jersey cities in Trump administration suits
- After second federal judge withdraws error-riddled ruling, litigants seek explanation
- 5 hallucinated cases lead federal judge to kick 3 Butler Snow lawyers off case
- Bondi files ethics complaint against federal judge who reportedly expressed concern about ‘constitutional crisis’