## Facts

- Sean Michael Flaim was a third-year student at a public medical school.
- Police searched his off-campus apartment in October 2001 and arrested him on multiple felony drug charges; police also seized a handgun and cash.
- A grand jury indicted him on felony drug-possession counts; he later pleaded guilty to one felony count of attempted drug possession and received two years of unsupervised probation.
- Two days after the arrest, the school suspended him pending completion of external investigations/hearings and informed him he could request an internal process.
- On advice of counsel, Flaim declined an internal investigation while the criminal case was pending to avoid self-incrimination.
- After the criminal case ended, he requested an internal disciplinary hearing; a student conduct and ethics committee held an in-person hearing in June 2002.
- Flaim attended with an attorney, but the school limited counsel to an advisory role and did not permit counsel to speak.
- At the hearing, Flaim admitted drug possession and use and acknowledged prior drug selling and involvement in events where drug use was common.
- The committee recommended dismissal, and the dean dismissed him for violating institutional standards of conduct.
- Flaim sought reconsideration and additional process, including more evidence and greater attorney participation; the school declined.

## Issues

1. Whether the school’s suspension and dismissal procedures provided constitutionally sufficient procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether limiting counsel to an advisory role and not providing confrontation/cross-examination violated procedural due process in the disciplinary hearing.
3. Whether the dismissal for felony drug misconduct was arbitrary or conscience-shocking so as to violate substantive due process.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The court assumed a significant interest in continued medical education and a future medical career but held due process in university discipline is flexible and does not require criminal-trial safeguards.
- Notice was constitutionally adequate because Flaim was informed of the basis for discipline (felony drug conviction and related conduct) and the possibility of dismissal with sufficient time to respond.
- The hearing satisfied minimum requirements because Flaim appeared, spoke, answered questions, and the key facts were established by his guilty plea and admissions, reducing the risk of error.
- The Constitution did not require active representation by counsel in this setting; allowing counsel to be present as an advisor was sufficient on these facts.
- Confrontation and cross-examination were not required because the case did not turn on disputed witness credibility and Flaim’s conviction and admissions largely resolved the relevant facts.
- No substantive due process violation occurred because dismissal for felony drug misconduct and admitted dealing/use was rationally related to legitimate interests (professional integrity and patient safety) and was not arbitrary.

## Legal Principles

- Procedural due process in public higher-education discipline generally requires notice reasonably calculated to inform the student of the alleged misconduct and potential sanctions, plus an opportunity to be heard.
- Due process requirements are context-dependent and set a constitutional floor; institutions are not required to provide criminal-trial procedures in student discipline.
- A university may limit an attorney’s participation in a disciplinary hearing to an advisory role without violating due process, absent circumstances making active legal representation constitutionally necessary.
- Cross-examination and confrontation are not categorical due process requirements in university discipline; they are most relevant when the outcome depends on resolving material credibility disputes.
- Substantive due process is violated only by conduct that is arbitrary in the constitutional sense; dismissal for serious criminal misconduct in a professional program is generally rational and constitutionally permissible.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that a public medical school provided constitutionally sufficient notice and a fair opportunity to be heard when it suspended and then dismissed a student following a felony drug conviction and related admissions, and that restricting counsel’s role and declining cross-examination did not violate due process; the dismissal was also rational and did not violate substantive due process.


Flaim v. Med. Coll. of Ohio, 418 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2005)