## Facts

- University of Wisconsin–Madison students, including Paul R. Soglin, participated in an October 18, 1967 protest against Dow Chemical recruiting on campus.
- The protest involved physical obstruction of doorways and corridors, preventing others from accessing job interviews.
- The Dean of Student Affairs notified certain students they were suspended pending a hearing for alleged violations of university regulations, initially citing a university rule and later issuing amended charges describing the conduct and referencing additional policies.
- Plaintiffs alleged that university officials had previously expelled some students and threatened further suspensions/expulsions under a freestanding disciplinary “misconduct” doctrine.
- The students sought declaratory and injunctive relief, contending the “misconduct” standard was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, particularly in a setting involving political protest.

## Issues

1. Whether the federal court could hear the challenge to university discipline, or whether exhaustion/abstention principles barred review.
2. Whether a public university’s use of an undefined, general “misconduct” standard as an independent ground for discipline is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad under the Fourteenth Amendment, with First Amendment implications.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s declaratory judgment that the university’s freestanding “misconduct” standard was unconstitutional.
- The court held the term “misconduct,” without definition or clear regulatory content, failed to provide fair notice and invited arbitrary enforcement.
- The court accepted the district court’s remedial approach, which declared the standard invalid but did not grant immediate broad injunctive relief halting all disciplinary proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A public university, as a state actor, must exercise disciplinary authority consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Disciplinary rules must provide reasonably definite notice of prohibited conduct and explicit standards limiting arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
- A vague disciplinary standard is especially problematic where it may chill expressive activity and association protected by the First Amendment.
- General assertions of “inherent authority” to maintain order do not permit discipline untethered to clear, established, and published standards.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that the University of Wisconsin could not suspend or expel students based solely on an undefined “misconduct” doctrine; due process requires clear, specific conduct standards, particularly where discipline arises from protest activity with First Amendment consequences.


Soglin v. Kauffman, 418 F.2d 163 (7th Cir. 1969)