Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Fourteenth Amendment-Proper Hearing

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 14, 2023//

Fourteenth Amendment-Proper Hearing

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 14, 2023//

Listen to this article

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Rahul Malhotra v. University of Illinois at Urbana

Case No.: 22-2469

Officials: Ripple, St. Eve, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Fourteenth Amendment-Proper Hearing

In 2021, while attending the University of Illinois, plaintiff Malhotra entered into a sublease agreement for a room in a fraternity house. The University had a policy prohibiting students from allowing underage drinking in their residences. Furthermore, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the University implemented restrictions on the size of social gatherings. According to Malhotra’s account, shortly after he moved in, his fellow residents organized a party. Malhotra asserted that he had no involvement in planning or hosting the party. During the event, he was studying in his room with noise-canceling headphones on, when his roommate alerted him to loud noises. Upon investigation, he found a large gathering, including an intoxicated young woman. The party ended when law enforcement officers arrived at the premises.

Following the incident, both Malhotra and the other residents were charged by the University with violating its code of conduct. Malhotra participated in a meeting with the Assistant Dean of Students and later appeared before the “Subcommittee on Undergraduate Student Conduct.” The committee found him guilty and issued a suspension lasting two semesters. Dean Die explained that Malhotra had been held accountable due to his status as a signatory on the fraternity house’s lease. However, it was later revealed that Malhotra had not actually signed the lease; rather, he had only subleased a room. Despite presenting the lease as evidence during an appeal, the suspension was upheld. Consequently, Malhotra initiated legal proceedings under 42 U.S.C. 1983.  Malhotra failed to demonstrate the existence of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest, which is a requisite under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Affirmed

Decided 08/08/23

Full Text

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests