Great post. I wanted to add something to one part of it. One issue the Judge seemed to take very seriously is her mention of TSJ falling 17 places in the mock draft after the suspension. I personally don't think much of mock drafts but apparently she did.
Yeah, and even if we assume mock drafts are reliable, it brings up at least two other things:
- Was his fall in mock drafts due to the suspension, or the charges being reported? Who has the burden of proof on this in a final ruling?
- Did the suspension or any action by university officials harm his reputation beyond what was already done by the charges?
I think both have to be true in order to claim a violation of §1983, at least as the judge explains: "To succeed on a theory that the University deprived him of his “occupational liberty,” Plaintiff must satisfy the “stigma plus” test, which requires him to show that the state inflicted
reputational damage accompanied by an alteration in legal status [i.e. suspension from athletics] that deprived him of a right he previously held."
UIUC certainly did a lot less to harm his reputation than the other cases cited, so they might have a case here. But the DIA panel could be perceived as making some judgment about his guilt or character even if they didn't really do that. I suppose this provides one blueprint for handling future situations- if you're going to suspend based on felony sexual assault charges, then just say that and nothing more. Don't have some half-measure panel that gives the appearance of making a judgment about guilt and could harm an athlete's reputation. Just say you have no comment on their guilt, but they're suspended as a matter of policy pending a resolution of the case.
Also, what if UIUC had waited for a few mock drafts that showed his fall before suspending him?
