Too soon.This is Illinois. If it's a coin flip we already know it's flicking us directly in the nuts.
Too soon.This is Illinois. If it's a coin flip we already know it's flicking us directly in the nuts.
Thank you @LvilleILLWe will see. The preliminary hearing will very likely happen in a couple of weeks, whether or not the TRO is granted. People in the know seem to think the TRO is a coin flip-could go either way. I think he has a pretty good argument but we will see
The Supreme Court in Ingraham v. Wright held that due process rights did not apply in cases of public school corporal punishment. Though you can make a better case for it in regard to striking a child than for suspending someone from a basketball team.Due process, as a protection provided by the Constitution, goes beyond the three examples you cited. More generally, due process as part of the 14th amendment prohibits the state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
During my Constitutional Law class with Professor Novak at U of I in the mid nineties, we even talked about due process rights in connection with the infliction of corporal punishment by a public school official, relative to a school child's constitutional rights.
Overall, I can see both sides of the argument. But if TJ is unable to play basketball until this case is over, that’s the equivalent of taking his home. That’ll cost him millions, if not 10s of millions
Can anyone post links to the pleadings filed in this case? I'd like to read both the amended TRO motion and the UIUC response.
I have a difficult time thinking in todays cultural climate that a judge will rule to allow a kid to play who is charged with rape. Hope beyond hope that I am wrong.We will see. The preliminary hearing will very likely happen in a couple of weeks, whether or not the TRO is granted. People in the know seem to think the TRO is a coin flip-could go either way. I think he has a pretty good argument but we will see
What a great guy Novak was. I may have sat behind you, listening-ish.Due process, as a protection provided by the Constitution, goes beyond the three examples you cited. More generally, due process as part of the 14th amendment prohibits the state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
During my Constitutional Law class with Professor Novak at U of I in the mid nineties, we even talked about due process rights in connection with the infliction of corporal punishment by a public school official, relative to a school child's constitutional rights.
I had him in the eighties. Reached out to him for his assistance when I joined with the ACLU in a First Amendment case in Florida. He never called back. Won anyway.What a great guy Novak was. I may have sat behind you, listening-ish.
Illinois is an at-will employment state. There are some exceptions (but "suspicion of a crime" is not one of them) and some limitations even outside of those exceptions, and TSJ's situation may or may not be considered employment. TSJ's argument w.r.t. UIUC is much more nuanced than "everyone who faces financial hardship if fired/suspended should have due process".Overall, I can see both sides of the argument. But if TJ is unable to play basketball until this case is over, that’s the equivalent of taking his home. That’ll cost him millions, if not 10s of millions.
He cannot transfer and play right away.I have a question for those that know the rules more than myself. If TSJ's case isn't dropped or finalized before the end of the season AND if his TRO is denied and the panel doesn't reinstate him on their own, could he actually transfer to another school that would accept him even with the case still lingering and allow him to play there?
Are you advocating for a PreCrime policy?I am so tired of the all or nothing people. You can create policies that are better suited for situations like this. The current policies are reactionary to behaviors and policies that ignored bad behavior and in some circumstances covered up. Policies like that are wrong as well. You can't tell me there is not a better way.
My (not a lawyer) reading of the TRO is it is claiming congress via title IX extended the right to due process to athletes at schools receiving federal funding. Thus TJ is entitled to due process. It makes a separate contractual claim due to the scholarship paperwork he signed.The Supreme Court in Ingraham v. Wright held that due process rights did not apply in cases of public school corporal punishment. Though you can make a better case for it in regard to striking a child than for suspending someone from a basketball team.
The way our legal system works they can spend weeks, months or even years in jail awaiting trialThe way our legal system works is that a defendant cannot be imprisoned until a conviction occurs. They can face countless other negative consequences based merely on a charge, such as job loss, and there’s no constitutional protection for that.
The University will always have its own interest top of mind in any decision they make, whether it's a potential first-round NBA pick, or an employee posting about free food on campus.
It looks like the chief judge reassigned the case to magistrate judge Hawley for further proceedings. Hopefully the hearing will still proceed tomorrow.I've seen it reported elsewhere that Judge Hawley is hearing the case tomorrow. Wondering if that's accurate and, if so, did Judge Lawless recuse herself?
The policy is garbage if you persecute the innocent as well as the guilty. If he loses. This won't help the school from being sued. The issue is that the Lawrence prosecutor should have done a much better job and worked with the uofi to get more information. At this point. There is nothing really tying him to her.
Hawley is referred Magistrate Judge hearing case. Lawless is the assigned JudgeI've seen it reported elsewhere that Judge Hawley is hearing the case tomorrow. Wondering if that's accurate and, if so, did Judge Lawless recuse herself?
Judge Hawley is the Magistrate Judge. Judge Lawless is still the presiding Judge. Each case in Federal Court has a presiding Judge and a Magistrate Judge. A lot of times preliminary motions and matters before trial are referred to the Magistrate Judge, so it is possible Judge Hawley is presiding over the hearing on the TRO tomorrow.I've seen it reported elsewhere that Judge Hawley is hearing the case tomorrow. Wondering if that's accurate and, if so, did Judge Lawless recuse herself?
We will see. The preliminary hearing will very likely happen in a couple of weeks, whether or not the TRO is granted. People in the know seem to think the TRO is a coin flip-could go either way. I think he has a pretty good argument but we will see