## Facts

- In February 1982, Alan David Rosenfeld was a third-year law student at the State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo).
- Students planned an evening rally in the student union, Squire Hall, to protest the university’s plan to convert the building into a dental school facility; students intended to stay past the building’s 2:00 a.m. closing time.
- Before the rally, Rosenfeld spoke with Ronald Stein, assistant to the university president, and said he planned to attend as a “legal observer” to witness any arrests and help prevent violence.
- Stein told Rosenfeld that Squire Hall would close at 2:00 a.m. and that anyone remaining after being told to leave would be arrested pursuant to President Robert Ketter’s instructions; Stein also stated there would be no exception for “legal observers.”
- At the rally, Lee Griffin, the director of public safety, ordered occupants to leave and warned that anyone who stayed would be arrested and that any student arrested would be suspended.
- Rosenfeld tried to explain his role as a legal observer and said he would leave voluntarily after arrests were made, but he stayed in the building after the closing order.
- At about 2:40 a.m., Rosenfeld—then the only legal observer remaining—was arrested and charged with third-degree trespass.
- After the arrest, Rosenfeld was served with a notice of suspension and a summons for a formal university disciplinary hearing.
- Four days later, the university lifted Rosenfeld’s interim suspension.
- After a later formal hearing, a disciplinary committee placed Rosenfeld on academic probation for the rest of the semester.
- Rosenfeld sued Ketter, Stein, and Griffin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging (1) denial of procedural due process because the interim suspension occurred before a formal hearing and (2) violation of the First Amendment based on discipline connected to his protest-related activity.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and Rosenfeld appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Rosenfeld’s interim suspension and subsequent discipline, imposed in connection with his refusal to leave Squire Hall after closing, violated procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the suspension and related discipline violated the First Amendment by punishing Rosenfeld’s protest-related expression or association.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court held that Rosenfeld received constitutionally sufficient process for the interim suspension because he had notice of the rule being enforced and an opportunity to explain his position through his discussions with university officials, consistent with the minimal requirements for short suspensions under *Goss v. Lopez*.
- The court held that the First Amendment was not violated because the university disciplined Rosenfeld for refusing to comply with a content-neutral closing-time directive and for remaining without permission, not for the viewpoint or subject matter of the protest.

## Legal Principles

- For short-term student suspensions at public educational institutions, due process generally requires notice of the alleged misconduct and an opportunity for the student to give his or her version of events; a trial-type hearing before the suspension is not required. (*Goss v. Lopez* framework.)
- An informal opportunity to explain one’s conduct may satisfy due process where the student is aware of the rule being applied, is warned of consequences, and is able to state his position to school officials in real time or through related communications.
- A public university may enforce content-neutral time, place, and manner limits and building-access rules, including closing-time directives, and may discipline students who knowingly refuse to comply.
- A claimed role such as “legal observer” does not create a constitutional exception to generally applicable, non-discriminatory campus safety and property-access rules.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld summary judgment for the university officials because Rosenfeld was repeatedly told that Squire Hall would close at 2:00 a.m., that no exception would be made for legal observers, and that remaining after an order to leave would result in arrest and student suspension; these communications gave him the minimal notice and chance to present his position required for an interim suspension, and the discipline targeted his refusal to comply with a neutral closing-time order rather than protected expression.


Rosenfeld v. Ketter, 820 F.2d 38 (1987)