Writing for the panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Hamilton held that the plaintiff, identified to date as "John Doe," had not shown the "substantial risk of harm—either physical harm or retaliation by third parties, beyond the reaction legitimately attached to the truth of events as determined in court" that circuit precedent requires for adults to proceed under pseudonym.
The plaintiff was suspended for three semesters in 2021 after a USI hearing panel found by a preponderance of the evidence that he had committed "Rape and Forcible Fondling." The panel wrote that the central issue was "whose version of events is more credible, as the details of each are irreconcilable," and concluded that the complaining student's account was more credible because it had been "consistent over time."
In later discovery, according to the opinion, the plaintiff learned that Title IX officials at USI had created memoranda of early conversations that "showed at least arguably (1) that John's account actually was consistent over time and (2) that Jane's account was not consistent over time." Those records were never disclosed to the plaintiff or to the hearing panel. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims.
On the pseudonym question, the plaintiff pointed to 2021 social media posts that threatened him and his mother with death or physical harm. Hamilton wrote that the district court had noted "the messages were several years old, that plaintiff's true identity was known to some of those posting, that no harm had come plaintiff in the intervening years, and that there was no other evidence indicating any intent to follow through on those threats years later."
The plaintiff also urged the court to broaden its standard to cover risks to mental health, citing evidence that he had contemplated suicide during the Title IX proceedings. Hamilton acknowledged that "the contemplation of suicide is a stark reminder that the issue here involves more than embarrassment" and that Title IX proceedings "can have devastating consequences, whether the situation and identities of those involved are publicized or not." Still, the panel declined to adopt a mental-health exception, writing that "the lines between embarrassment, stress, and degrees of mental illness are not sharp."
Both sides had argued the merits cut in their favor on the pseudonym question. The plaintiff said university proceedings are supposed to be confidential and that USI's alleged concealment of evidence forced him into federal court. The defendants countered that even victims of sexual assault are not necessarily entitled to anonymity in Title IX litigation in federal court, and that a student found responsible for a sexual assault should not have greater anonymity rights than a victim. The panel rejected both framings. "It would be incongruous, if not downright self-contradictory," Hamilton wrote, "to say that the resolution of just such a collateral issue should depend on an assessment of the merits of the case."
The court consolidated three related appeals, Nos. 24-2245, 24-2318, and 24-2771, and is holding them under advisement. Following the path taken in Doe v. Trustees of Indiana University and Doe v. Loyola University Chicago, the panel gave the plaintiff until May 13, 2026 to dismiss the appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42 if he wishes to avoid public disclosure of his name. Chief Judge Brennan and Circuit Judge St. Eve joined the opinion. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt handled the case below.