Writing for a panel that included Chief Judge Michael Brennan and Circuit Judge Amy St. Eve, Circuit Judge David Hamilton held that plaintiff "John Doe" had not shown the substantial risk of harm required to overcome the court's strong presumption against pseudonymous litigation by adult parties.
Doe 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 issue was "whose version of events is more credible, as the details of each are irreconcilable," and credited the complaining student's account in part because it had been "consistent over time" while Doe's had changed.
In discovery, Doe learned that USI Title IX officials had created memoranda of early conversations with both students. Those memoranda, Hamilton wrote, 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." USI did not disclose the records to Doe or to any Title IX decisionmakers.
The district court, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, ultimately granted summary judgment to the defendants on Doe's Title IX, due process and emotional distress claims. Three appeals from those rulings have been consolidated; this decision addresses only whether Doe may proceed anonymously.
Doe argued that 2021 social media posts threatening him and his mother with death established a risk of physical harm. Hamilton found no abuse of discretion in the district court's conclusion that the messages were several years old, that some posters already knew Doe's identity, that no harm had followed, and that Doe had left the Midwest with no intention of returning to USI.
The panel also declined to broaden the standard from Doe v. Trustees of Indiana University and Doe v. Loyola University Chicago to cover risks to mental health, even acknowledging evidence that Doe had contemplated suicide during the proceedings. "The lines between embarrassment, stress, and degrees of mental illness are not sharp," Hamilton wrote, adding that the court was "not saying" any mental health exception exists.
Both sides urged the court to weigh the merits of the underlying case in deciding the pseudonym question. The panel refused. "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," because collateral-order jurisdiction exists only for issues "completely separate from the merits of the action."
Following the procedure used in Indiana University and Loyola Chicago, the court will not immediately place Doe's real name in the public record. He has until May 13, 2026, to file a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42 dismissing all three appeals; otherwise, the Seventh Circuit will decide the merits in an opinion using his real name.