Legal Document

474 U.S. 214 106 S.Ct. 507 88 L.Ed.2d 523 REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY MICHIGAN, Petitioner,v.Scott E. EWING. No. 84-1273. Argued Oct. 8, 1985. Decided Dec. 12, Syllabus Respondent was enrolled in a 6-year program of study at University Michigan known as "Inteflex." An undergraduate degree and medical are awarded upon successful completion program. To qualify for final two years student must pass an examination "NBME Part I." dismissed from when he failed this with lowest score recorded history Inteflex After unsuccessfully seeking, authorities, readmission to opportunity retake examination, respondent brought suit Federal District Court, alleging right on ground, inter alia, that had property interest his dismissal arbitrary capricious violation "substantive due process rights" guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment. While determining constitutionally protected continued enrollment program, Court found no rights. The Appeals reversed. Held: Even if respondent's assumed gave rise substantive under Due Process Clause continue free state action, facts record disclose such action. unmistakably demonstrates decision dismiss made conscientiously careful deliberation, based evaluation entire academic career University, including singularly low NBME I examination. narrow avenue judicial review substance decisions precludes any conclusion substantial departure accepted norms demonstrate faculty did not exercise professional judgment. Pp. 222-228. 742 F.2d 913 (CA6 1984), reversed remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. POWELL, filed concurring opinion, post, p. 228. Roderick K. Daane, Ann Arbor, Mich., petitioner. Michael M. Conway, Chicago, Ill., respondent. Justice STEVENS 1 Scott Ewing after failing important written question presented is whether University's action deprived without law because its refusal allow him past practice. held constitutional rights were violated. We disagree. 2 * In fall 1975 special study, "Inteflex," offered jointly college Medical School.1 order which consist clinical training hospitals affiliated successfully complete four both premedical courses basic sciences. also I"—a 2-day test administered National Board Examiners. 3 spring 1981, overcoming certain personal difficulties, completed prescribed first thereby qualified take I. five seven subjects receiving total 235 passing 345. (A 380 required licensure national mean 500.) received brief 4 On July 24, Promotion Review individually reviewed status several students considering Ewing's some detail, nine members attendance voted unanimously drop registration 5 response request Ewing, reconvened week later reconsider decision. appeared personally explained why believed fairly reflect progress or potential.2 reconsidering matter, voting present reaffirmed prior 6 August, appealed Board's Executive Committee School. giving be heard person, approved motion deny appeal leave absence would enable following year, reappeared before separate occasions, each time seeking August 19, 1982, commenced litigation United States Eastern Michigan. II 7 complaint against Regents asserted three theories, predicated one federal law.3 As matter law, alleged constituted breach contract barred doctrine promissory estoppel. capricious, violating Amendment entitling relief 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 8 4-day bench trial it took evidence claim justified well allegation other who routinely been given second test. described unfortunate detail. Its findings, set forth margin,4 reveal "encountered immediate difficulty handling work," v. Regents, 559 F.Supp. 791, 793 (1983), difficulties—in form marginally grades number incompletes makeup examinations, many experienced while reduced course load—persisted throughout period 9 discounted importance own offering even more deficiencies uniformly allowed See App. 107-111. statistical indicated 32 standard School since inception, all permitted test, 10 third time, fourth time. Seven twice. only who, having it. Dr. Robert Reed, former Director member Board, stated "routinely" chance. F.Supp., 794. Accord, 30, 39-40, 68, 73, 163. argued promotional pamphlet released approximately codified pamphlet, entitled "On Becoming Doctor," stated: "According Gibson, everything possible done keep This extends taking Exams. Should fail either part Boards, provided make up failure exam." Id., 113. 11 concluded support estoppel governing law. There "no sufficient conclude defendants bound themselves expressly conduct give chance examination." 800. With reference "even [Ewing] learned pamphlet's contents find not, amounted unqualified promise Ibid. 12 regard claim, determined university's concerning qualifications "subject review" court. 798. however, record, emphasized, devoid indication "based bad faith, ill will impermissible ulterior motives"; contrary, "evidence demonstrate[d] plaintiff reached fair impartial manner, deliberate consideration." 799. "leave conjecture" decision, Judge "the [the Regents] good reason program." 13 Without reaching state-law breach-of-contract promissory-estoppel claims,5 claim. agreed implied interference Clause, but arbitrarily (1) "Ewing 'qualified' student, defined term, sat I"; (2) "it consistent practice initially retest"; (3) between retest." 913, 916 1984). therefore directed I, should pass, reinstate 14 granted petition certiorari consider misapplied process."6 470 1083, 105 1841, 85 141 (1985). now reverse. III 15 Curators, Univ. Mo. Horowitz, 435 78, 91-92, 98 948, 955-956, 55 124 (1978), we assumed, deciding, courts can public educational institution standard. case contends appropriate program.7 But remembering Brandeis' admonition " 'formulate rule broader than precise applied,' Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 347, 56 466, 483, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (concurring opinion), again conclude, disclosed afford most basis accept invitation "assume existence protectible [Ewing's] enrollment,"8 hold 16 preliminary noted protection necessarily complaint, 15, below, derives dismissal. exam and, what more, explicitly "reject[ed] claims, finding overturn Court's determination lacked tenable law,9 see supra, 511, n. 5, reasonable rendering particularly party has challenged it.10 17 thus actionable itself. It is, element product proper analysis may constitute arbitrariness actual legal wrong alleged. question, then, compels acted dropping permitting reexamination. 18 remember procedures used unfair respect; quite contrary true. Nor accused concealing nonacademic reasons expelling Ewing; faith. 19 therefore, misjudged fitness remain demonstrates, faculty's entirety career. When judges asked genuinely one, they show great respect judgment.11 Plainly, override unless person committee responsible actually Cf. Youngberg Romeo, 457 307, 323, 102 2452, 2462, 73 28 (1982). 20 Considerations profound counsel restrained decisions. WHITE explained: 21 "Although regularly proceeds assumption procedural dimension, always bear mind content suggested neither language nor preconstitutional history; nothing accumulated interpretation Fifth Amendments. . underline Mr. Black's constant reminder colleagues license invalidate legislation thinks merely unreasonable." Moore East Cleveland, 431 494, 543-544 [97 1932, 1958-1959, 52 531] (1977) (WHITE, dissenting). 22 id., 502 S.Ct., 1937] (opinion J.). Added our concern lack standards reluctance trench prerogatives local institutions responsibility safeguard their freedom, "a First Amendment." Keyishian 385 589, 603, 87 675, 683, 629 (1967).12 If "federal court forum multitude personnel daily agencies," Bishop Wood, 426 341, 349, 96 2074, 2079, 48 684 (1976), far less suited evaluate institutions—decisions require "an expert cumulative information [are] readily adapted tools administrative decisionmaking." U.S., 89-90, 954-955. 23 Certainly expulsion cannot considered aberrant viewed isolation. fact "had Before unenviable characterized grades, incompletes, terms during irregular load. boards, words professors, "merely culminate[d] series deficiencies. ways, it's straw broke camel's back." 79. 7, 54-55, 72-73.13 Moreover, "qualified" sense eligible does weaken conclusion, entirely reexamine light results Admittedly, have unwise Permission might saved expense conceivably demonstrated profession. nevertheless remains true rested judgment beyond pale reasoned decision-making background Michigan, examination.14 24 reversed, remanded proceedings opinion. 25 so ordered. 26 concurring. 27 Although join holding presents asserts, think unnecessary assume case. alleges capricious. allegedly violated Amendment, providing correctly points out, dubious best. Ante, 222, 7. assumes right, every process. interests though derived rather Constitution, Roth, 408 564, 577, 92 2701, 2709, 33 548 (1972), created Constitution. 29 "counsels caution restraint." 502, 97 1937, 531 plurality). exists 'certain scrutiny needs justify abridgment.' Ibid., quoting Poe Ullman, 367 497, 543, 81 1752, 1776, 989 (1961) (HARLAN, context liberty interests, examine determine "merits" See, e.g., supra; Roe Wade, 410 113, 93 705, 35 147 (1973); Griswold Connecticut, 381 479, 1678, 510 (1965). "Each new [substantive process] Constitutional purposes, rationally perceived historically developed." Poe, 544, 1777 30 respondent—an NBME—is essentially right. bears little resemblance fundamental previously implicitly certainly closely tied "respect teachings history, solid recognition values underlie society, wise appreciation roles doctrines federalism separation powers played establishing preserving American freedoms," Griswold, 501, 1690 judgment). For these reasons, briefly summarized, do labeled "property" entitles those other, heretofore accorded Harrah Independent Martin, 440 194, 99 1062, 59 248 (1979). 31 agree fully emphasis deference accord university authorities. view charitably characterizes "unfortunate," never litigated. Sixth Circuit, subject Supreme Judicial decisions, admission students, rarely appropriate, where orderly followed—as case.* lengthened years. At meetings excused mother suffered heart attack months examination; girlfriend about six work essay contest taken too much time; pharmacology just I; inadequate preparation caused panic A count advanced damages instrumentality immunized liability Eleventh complaint. 552 881 (ED Mich.1982). "In 1975, encountered Biology. until semester C. His performance follows: C Chemistry 120, writing course, incomplete Freshman Seminar. next 220, Seminar, Psychology 504. He B withdrew advised could Patient Care Course, usually student's placed Because 14, 1976 meeting requested absence, approved, left "During summer leave, Physics Point Loma College California. reentered winter 1977 term. term repeated 220 A-. 1977, passed Introduction course. 1977-78 regular Year then difficulty. 1978 Clinical Studies 400, converted Pass; Microbiology 420; Gross Anatomy 507. C- make-up During 1979 Genetics 505, 520, E Microanatomy General Pathology 506, Creative Writing, Pass 410. grade, requesting change D, receive Pass. denied Grade Appeal Committee, program; 420 semester. 1979, submitted consisting Pharmacology 1979-80 Human Illness Neuroscience 1980-81, splitting year into curriculum year. undertook so. removed deficiency 506 repeating 1980 C+. Developmental B- grade 509 1980, 609 626, 627. 67.7 grade. "He NBME. ." 793-794. footnote, "Because believe disposed Section 1983 reach claims." 914, bar "Board Michigan," 13, body corporate. Florida Dept. Health Nursing Home Assn., 450 147, 101 1032, 67 132 (1981) (per curiam); Alabama Pugh, 438 781, 3057, 57 1114 (1978) curiam). granted, amend joining individual named official capacities. oppose motion. Tr. Oral Arg. 12-13. Granting conforms pleadings "course proceedings" Kentucky Graham, 473 159, 167, 3099, 3106, 114 (1985); Brandon Holt, 469 464, 469, 873, 876, 83 878 reveals frequently referred plural, "defendants," indicating understood them individually, capacities, corporate entity. 11. Likewise, "defendants act rights," 799, accordingly "in favor defendants," consequently grant motion, allowing name Patsy 496, 516, 2557, 2567, 172 Given resolution case, need sought available principles. below "defined existing rules understandings stem independent source law." Goss Lopez, 419 565, 572-573, 95 729, 735-736, 725 (1975). companion Perry Sindermann, 593, 601-602, 2694, 2699-2700, 570 "agreements 'the promisor's surrounding circumstances' sources interests. 344, 2077, (1976) (implied contracts). According antiquated race discrimination (whose principal overtaken events), "when admitted college, there understanding shall therefrom." Booker Grand Rapids College, 156 Mich. 95, 99-100, 120 N.W. 591 (1909). From foregoing, us 3. Consistent suggestion, petitioner's answer "admit[ted] that, enjoyed Program." 21. ambiguity understand "clearly erroneous" rejection solely "undisputed pattern conduct"—namely, "substantial uncontroverted it." F.2d, 915. "rule" effect examinations. Indeed, relied "promotional 'On Doctor' extent "memorialized school (emphasis added). inferred Yet reverse aware standing statements tract "amoun[t] examination" recognize, "mutually explicit understandings" operate create 601, 2699. tacit agreements legitimate entitlement" 'an .' 602, 2700, (quoting 2709). emphasis, liberal retesting custom entitlement rejected argument similar Roth. Roth employment virtue "of hundred forty-two non-tenured renewed [a particular] year." Brief O.T.1971, 71-162, (footnote citation omitted). Absent statute "anything approaching 'common law' re-employment," renewal teaching contract. 578, 16, 2710, 16. dealing issues enter judgments courts, hesitant overrule skilled particular states conclusions shown Propper Clark, 337 472, 486-487, 69 1333, 1341-1342, 1480 (1949). Haring Prosise, 462 306, 314, 103 2368, 2373, 76 595 (1983); Leroy Great Western Corp., 443 173, 181, 11, 2715, 61 464 (1979); Butner States, 48, 58, 919, 136 345-347, 2077-2079. "University faculties widest range discretion making promotion graduation." 96, 6, 958, (POWELL, concurring). 90-92, 955-956 Court). Academic freedom thrives uninhibited exchange ideas among teachers 683; Sweezy New Hampshire, 354 234, 250, 77 1203, 1211, 1311 (1957) WARREN, C.J.), also, somewhat inconsistently, autonomous decisionmaking academy itself, California Bakke, 265, 312, 2733, 2759, 750 J.); 263, 1218 (FRANKFURTER, result). Discretion determine, grounds, essential freedoms" university. 2759 J.) result)) (internal quotations viewing perspective, say explanations extenuating circumstances compelling irrational. example, sensitivity difficulties life inability handle stress inherent medicine. inordinate amount devoted extracurricular reasonably revealed priorities. termination substantially deviate compared treatment students. sure, others despite tables recording 105-111, charts outside research honor received, 119-120, position "similarly situated" Ewing. presumably raw data nature seriousness concentration disciplines—in hard able account numerous examinations secure connection loads. Finally, uniquely positioned observe judgment, self-discipline, ability stress, especially situated subjective prospects success insusceptibility rigorous borne out records judge "better" Ewing's, being 165-166. 66 (nine terminated suffering warning). J.), cited ante, 225, ("Academic specifically enumerated long Amendment"); (1967).

Classification Label: 3