## Facts

- The University of Central Arkansas (UCA) revised a firearms policy providing that any student who possessed, stored, or used a firearm on university-controlled property would be suspended for at least three years, absent a presidential waiver recommended by the Vice President for Student Affairs.
- The revised policy was distributed and published to the student body.
- Heather A. Denton, a UCA student, stored a handgun in her dormitory room.
- During a dorm room search connected to another investigation, the handgun was discovered, and Denton admitted having it.
- Dr. John Smith, Vice President for Student Affairs, found Denton in violation and imposed a mandatory three-year suspension.
- Denton appealed to the University Discipline Committee, which found a violation but recommended reducing the sanction.
- Dr. Smith rejected the committee’s recommendation and upheld the three-year suspension; the university president did not reduce the sanction.
- Denton sued in chancery court, challenging the policy and the suspension on due process grounds.
- The chancellor declared the policy facially void on substantive due process grounds, set aside Denton’s suspension, and denied damages and attorney’s fees based on immunity.
- UCA officials appealed the invalidation of the policy and the relief from suspension; Denton cross-appealed the denial of damages and fees.

## Issues

1. Whether the university disciplinary process provided Denton constitutionally adequate procedural due process before imposing a three-year suspension.
2. Whether the firearms policy, on its face or as applied, violated substantive due process.
3. Whether sovereign immunity barred Denton’s claims for damages and attorney’s fees against UCA and its officials in their official capacities.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the decree setting aside Denton’s three-year suspension, holding Denton was denied procedural due process.
- The court declined to reach the substantive due process validity of the firearms policy, concluding the case could be resolved on procedural grounds.
- The court affirmed the denial of damages and attorney’s fees, holding UCA and its officials were immune from monetary relief in this suit.
- The court affirmed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

## Legal Principles

- A student’s continued enrollment at a public university is a protected interest that cannot be significantly impaired without constitutionally adequate process.
- Judicial deference to university disciplinary decisions does not excuse failure to meet minimum procedural due process requirements.
- When discipline is severe, procedures must provide meaningful notice and a fair opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision-maker, with review mechanisms that are not merely self-confirming.
- An appellate or review procedure may be constitutionally inadequate where the official who imposed discipline effectively controls the outcome and rejects independent recommendations without meaningful review.
- An appellate court may affirm a correct result on different legal grounds than those relied on by the trial court and may avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings.
- State sovereign immunity generally bars damages and attorney’s fees against state universities and officials sued in their official capacities absent a waiver.

## Conclusion

The court set aside Denton’s three-year suspension because the university’s process did not provide adequate procedural due process for so severe a sanction, but it refused to decide whether the firearms policy was substantively unconstitutional and held that sovereign immunity barred damages and attorney’s fees.


Smith v. Denton, 895 S.W.2d 550 (Ark. 1995)