Here we go. A former UVA law student is challenging the legality of the Dear Colleague letter that led to the lowering of standards of proof in campus sexual assault proceedings.
The quoted attorney, Justin Dillon, is my law school classmate and frequent collaborator. He and I will be presenting a talk on Title IX issues at the Higher Education Consultants’ Association conference in Philadelphia this coming Wednesday afternoon. If you’re interested in attending, let me know.
I am just posting because I thought a lot of people on CC care about this issue and the thread was floating to oblivion. 
Interesting debate. Did it have to go through a comments period? Did it have to match the level of proof that the OCR uses? All this is way above my pay grade, but it’ll be very interesting keep abreast of the case.
This is excellent news. Colleges have no business trying to handle sexual assault.
I thought it was interesting that some of the lawyers quoted for comment thought it was a stronger case than the others that have been filed.
I am not a lawyer. Can someone with more smarts in this area please explain exactly what this lawsuit says in plain terms, and why it might be a stronger case?
Thank you!
@bearpanther, the simplest explanation (which matches the depth of my understanding anyway) is this:
Congress authorizes federal agencies to make rules that have the force of law, but any such rule has to go through an elaborate process first. It has to be proposed to the public so that affected parties can offer critiques, improvements, etc. The Dear Colleague letter that pushed schools to adopt the preponderance of the evidence standard in Title IX cases didn’t go through that elaborate process, but it pretty much has legal force. So a student who was punished under the new standard is suing the Department of Education, saying that he was injured by the agency’s illegal process of issuing the rule.
I am posting this here. I admit this doesn’t have a direct connection to the topic of the thread. Having said this… I think there is some connection.
It is also interesting. A $950,000 settlement.
I’d been wondering for some time when someone would bring this lawsuit. The DCL seems like a classic case of rulemaking without adequate process–so much so that I wouldn’t be surprised to see it end up in textbooks.
One detail I should have included in post #5:
The Department of Education has teeth: it is empowered to decide that a noncompliant school doesn’t qualify to receive federal funds, which includes subsidized student loans, work-study funds, Pell grants, etc. If you’re not HYPS and filthy rich with private money, this effectively means that the DoE has power to shut down your school. No one else can keep the lights on without federal money (and even Harvard would hurt bad). This is why the stakes of compliance with the DoE’s rules are so high, and it’s really important to define whether the rule is a suggestion or a requirement. It’s a matter of life or death for the institution.
The Atlantic has a well-written piece further explaining the issues in this case:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/campuses-sexual-misconduct/487505/