Chelsey Dudley earned a bachelor’s degree in social work from Boise State University (“BSU”) in May 2022 after completing all program requirements, including a spring internship with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (“IDHW”). That summer, she passed the state licensing exam and became a licensed social worker. Months later, BSU retroactively invalidated her degree and expelled her after receiving information from IDHW that Dudley had improperly accessed confidential records related to the father of her child and other individuals. Dudley acknowledged accessing the database but explained that it was incidental or related to her training. Nonetheless, BSU informed her in November 2022, without a hearing, that it was changing her internship grade to a fail and rescinding her degree.
Following this revocation, Dudley was notified that she would face a student conduct hearing, initially scheduled for December 2022 but postponed following a temporary restraining order. A revised hearing was held in February 2023 before a five-member conduct board. The panel considered written statements from BSU and IDHW staff but did not allow live testimony or cross-examination of adverse witnesses. Dudley was given 25 minutes to present her case, though she had initially been told she would only have 10 minutes. She was not permitted to cross-examine the University’s lead investigator, and she alleged that the investigator remained with the panel during deliberations. After the hearing, BSU again revoked her degree and expelled her.
Dudley filed suit against BSU and several administrators, asserting claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for both procedural and substantive due process violations. She also sought injunctive relief to prevent the revocation and expulsion. The trial court dismissed the case, holding that Dudley lacked a protected property interest in her degree and that, even if she had one, BSU’s procedures were constitutionally adequate.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed in part. The Court first held that Dudley had a constitutionally protected property interest in her conferred degree. Drawing on Idaho law and policies of the Idaho State Board of Education, the Court emphasized that students who complete their coursework are entitled to their degrees, and that a diploma carries significant value, both symbolically and practically, particularly in fields like social work, where a degree is a prerequisite to licensure. The Court found that BSU’s summary revocation in November 2022, without prior notice or a hearing, violated due process. Although a later hearing was held, the Court determined that certain procedures used at that hearing were also deficient.
Specifically, the Court found that Dudley had plausibly alleged due process violations based on the limited time she was given to present her case and the inability to cross-examine key University-affiliated witnesses, including the lead investigator. The Court emphasized that cross-examination is especially important where the outcome turns on credibility and factual disputes, and that allowing the investigator to remain in the deliberation room may have undermined the Board’s neutrality. However, the Court rejected claims that Dudley was not given adequate notice of the charges or that the presence of the investigator during deliberations alone constituted a due process violation.
The Court affirmed dismissal of Dudley’s substantive due process claim, holding that she had not shown a complete bar to pursuing her chosen profession. While the degree revocation may disrupt her career, the Court explained that she could still pursue the social work profession without a license or degree, she could pursue a social work education elsewhere, and she had not been formally blacklisted from employment in the social work field.
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reinstated Dudley’s procedural due process claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. The panel affirmed the dismissal of the substantive due process claims, and dismissed the appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction as moot.
Dudley v. Boise State University (9th Cir. 2025) 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24076.
Note: While the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect individuals from acts by private schools or private individuals, California law requires that private schools provide fundamental fairness in connection with student discipline, which includes notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond.