Opinion ID: 2769479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Brown’s Criminal History and Expulsion

Text: When Mr. Brown applied for law school, his application contained a section entitled “Character & Fitness.” In this section, applicants were to disclose any criminal history: Have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony, misdemeanor or infraction other than a traffic violation? (include diversions, sealed or expunged records, and juvenile offenses) Have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a traffic violation involving alcohol or a controlled substance? (include diversions, sealed or expunged records, and juvenile offenses) If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, please explain on a separate sheet or electronic attachment submitted with your application and provide the date, nature of the offense or proceeding, name and location of the court or tribunal, and disposition of the matter. Appellees’ App., vol. I at 224. Mr. Brown answered “no” to these questions. He then certified the truth of his answers, acknowledging that a false answer constituted “sufficient cause for denial of [the] application or dismissal from the School of Law.” Id. at 224-25, 227. With certification of the answers, the law school accepted Mr. Brown and he began classes. Mr. Brown then amended his application to disclose criminal convictions for domestic battery and driving under the influence. The law -3- school’s admissions committee investigated and determined that Mr. Brown’s application would have been rejected if his criminal history had been known. With this determination, an associate dean filed an academic misconduct complaint. Mr. Brown objected, and a hearing panel dismissed the complaint on the ground that it did not allege violation of a particular rule. Nonetheless, the panel observed that Mr. Brown’s application and certification letter acknowledged that he could be expelled for falsifying, misrepresenting, or failing to supply required information. The law school’s dean, Ms. Gail Agrawal, sent Mr. Brown a letter, stating her intent to dismiss him for “falsification, misrepresentation, and failure to supply complete, accurate and truthful answers to [his] application for admission to the School of Law.” Id. at 211. She detailed the facts warranting dismissal and stated: “If you believe that this action is inappropriate or that there are mitigating factors that I should consider before dismissing you, then you must provide me with a written response to this letter by 2:00 p.m. on June 3, 2010.” Id. Mr. Brown challenged the dismissal, demanding a hearing and notice of the charges and requesting a hearing with the University Judicial Board and a personal meeting with Dean Agrawal. Dean Agrawal declined a meeting and the Judicial Board’s chairperson declined to provide a hearing, stating that faculty rules authorized each college to establish its own admission standards. The -4- Dean then notified Mr. Brown that he was dismissed from the law school “based on falsification, misrepresentation and failure to supply the required information to support [his] admission to the School of Law.” Id. at 144-45. Mr. Brown sued, and the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the members of the Board of Regents had no personal involvement in Mr. Brown’s dismissal, and that the defendants provided due process. 1