## Facts

- Two University of Virginia students, Harrison Kerr Tigrett and Bradley Clark Kintz, were involved in an early-morning altercation with another student, Alexander Kory, causing serious facial injuries.
- Both students later entered *nolo contendere* pleas in state court to misdemeanor disorderly conduct arising from the incident.
- Kory filed a complaint under the University’s student conduct system, which used a student-run University Judiciary Committee (UJC) to adjudicate charges, subject to administrative review.
- The UJC scheduled a hearing; Tigrett and Kintz did not attend, asserting procedural concerns. The UJC proceeded in absentia, found them responsible, and recommended expulsion.
- The Vice President for Student Affairs declined to accept the UJC expulsion recommendations due to perceived procedural irregularities.
- The Vice President appointed a five-member Fact Finding Panel of University officials to conduct a new hearing.
- The Panel conducted a lengthy hearing (about 13 hours) at which the students had counsel, could present evidence, and could cross-examine witnesses.
- The Panel found both students responsible for violating University standards; the University President adopted the factual findings and imposed sanctions, giving Tigrett a harsher sanction than Kintz.
- The students sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging procedural due process, substantive due process, equal protection, and related claims, and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the University’s disciplinary proceedings, viewed as a whole, denied procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the disciplinary actions were so arbitrary as to violate substantive due process.
3. Whether disparate sanctions or alleged irregularities constituted an equal protection violation.
4. Whether individual University officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims.
5. Whether the Eleventh Amendment barred official-capacity damages claims and what, if any, prospective relief could remain.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the University and the individual defendants on the federal § 1983 claims.
- The court held that the overall process—including the Fact Finding Panel hearing and presidential review—provided constitutionally sufficient procedural due process.
- The court rejected substantive due process claims, finding the University’s actions were not conscience-shocking or irrational.
- The court rejected equal protection challenges to different sanctions, applying rational-basis review and finding no unconstitutional discrimination.
- The court held the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The court affirmed dismissal or rejection of state-law claims and held official-capacity damages claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment; any prospective-relief theories did not succeed.

## Legal Principles

- Public university students may have protected interests in continued enrollment and in avoiding serious disciplinary sanctions, triggering due process protections.
- Procedural due process in university discipline is flexible and generally requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, not criminal-trial procedures.
- A later, more formal hearing can cure alleged procedural defects in an earlier disciplinary proceeding when the later process provides constitutionally adequate safeguards.
- A due-process bias claim requires more than allegations of unfairness; it generally requires proof of disqualifying interest or commitment to a predetermined outcome.
- Substantive due process is violated only by conduct that is arbitrary in the constitutional sense, including actions that “shock the conscience.”
- Disparate discipline among students does not, by itself, violate equal protection; absent a suspect classification or fundamental right, rational-basis review applies.
- Qualified immunity bars damages where plaintiffs fail to show violation of a clearly established constitutional right.
- The Eleventh Amendment generally bars damages claims against state entities and officials in their official capacities; prospective relief may be available only within narrow limits.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld the University’s disciplinary outcome and rejected constitutional challenges, concluding that any earlier procedural problems were cured by a later, counsel-assisted evidentiary hearing and presidential review, that the sanctions were not constitutionally arbitrary, and that officials were shielded from damages by qualified immunity while official-capacity damages were barred by sovereign immunity.


Tigrett v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 290 F.3d 620 (4th Cir. 2002)