Court Opinion

ID: 9427090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:19:42.381111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:04.850051
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The Court’s opinion, and that of Mr. Justice Marshall, together demonstrate conclusively that, assuming the existence of a liberty or property interest, respondent received all the procedural process that was due her under the Fourteenth *109Amendment. That, for me, disposes of this case, and compels the reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I find it unnecessary, therefore, to indulge in the arguments and counterarguments contained in the two opinions as to the extent or type of procedural protection that the Fourteenth Amendment requires in the graduate-school-dismissal situation. Similarly, I also find it unnecessary to choose between the arguments as to whether respondent’s dismissal was for academic or disciplinary reasons (or, indeed, whether such a distinction is relevant). I do agree with Mr. Justice Marshall, however, that we should leave to the District Court and to the Court of Appeals in the first instance the resolution of respondent’s substantive due process claim and of any other claim presented to, but not decided by, those courts.
Accordingly, I, too, would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.