I'm a civil litigator with experience with TRO's but no experience with the nuances of education law/Title IX/etc. If I had to wager, I would say the TRO will be denied.
I think the University makes a compelling argument that TSJ's conduct was not a university activity. This is important because, if correct, Title IX will not apply to TSJ. TSJ argues it was a university activity because Hobson, a grad assistant who is also his roommate, accompanied him and Harmon to Lawrence, and further, Hobson was directed by Illini staff to accompany TSJ and Harmon. In response, U of I says Hobson is a student-manager who has no supervisory role over TSJ, and a coach only asked Harmon to drive TSJ and Harmon because of the long drive, quick turnaround, and the fact TSJ had been involved a motor vehicle accident before where he fell asleep while driving. U of I says it provided no expectations or instructions for what TSJ, Hobson, or anyone else was to do while in Lawrence. The U of I supports this with an affidavit from Geoff Alexander.
Without Title IX protections, it seems the dispute really boils down to whether U of I followed its DIA policy and afforded TSJ due process. On the DIA policy, U of I argues that, under the policy, receipt of "credible information (such as an arrest warrant) of a potential 'Major Offense' authorizes Whitman, as Director of Athletics, to take interim action to withhold a student-athlete from athletic activities pending review by a Student-Athlete Conduct Panel ("Panel")." U of I goes on to argue that the "Panel is not an investigative body and is not asked to determine whether the alleged misconduct occurred; rather, it considers information available to it at the time it convenes to determine whether that information justifies withholding the student-athlete from some or all athletic activities pending final resolution of the charges at issue." The U of I says the criminal charge was "credible information of a Major Offense resulting in DIA taking interim action pursuant to the DIA Policy."
As for the process, U of I argues that it gave TSJ appropriate process because it notified him and gave him an opportunity to be heard, TSJ and his attorneys requested and was granted a delay in the Panel's reviw, and TSJ and his attorneys submitted to the Panel a letter and ~50 pages of exhibits, which the Panel considered.
Ultimately, it seems the U of I is saying that the criminal charges triggered the interim suspension and the DIA Panel is not really there to determine the merit of those charges. The U of I says: "The DIA Policy reflects that an arrest and criminal felony charge do not occur without serious evidence (including probable cause attestation and judicial issuance of a warrant), and for this reason, credible information of a major offense like an arrest and criminal charge must be taken seriously and may require interim action that continues while the charges are pending. Even in such serious cases, the student-athlete is given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, if any exists, that an interim suspension is inappropriate, and the Panel will weigh that information in making its determination."
I hope I'm wrong.
Also, there had been discussion in prior threads about the time of the incident and when TSJ left Lawrence. The U of I's response confirms TSJ had to be back in Champaign by 8:00 a.m. for an NIL event the day after the football game. Hobson's affidavit seemed to state that they arrived back in Champaign at 4:30 a.m., though it was unclear whether Hobson was saying they left Lawrence at 4:30 a.m. or arrived back in Champaign at 4:30 a.m. Not sure how that affects anything if TSJ was observed on the bar's surveillance cameras at around the time the incident alleged occurred, but, on its face, the times certainly do not appear to add up.