Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

Reid v. James Madison University

Back to Case Finder

CASE: Alyssa Reid v. James Madison University, et al.

STATUS: Closed

NCLA ROLE: Counsel

COURTS HEARD IN: 4th Cir., W.D. Va.

ORIGINAL COURT: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia

DECIDING COURT: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

OPENED: May 3, 2021

AGENCIES: James Madison University

FOCUS AREAS:

Due Process Violations

The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

Guidance Abuse

Agency guidance is easier to promulgate than formal rules and regulations, so agencies prefer to issue it. Such “guidance” supplies relatively informal indications of how an agency interprets rules and statutes. Although guidance is not permitted to bind Americans (unlike laws made by elected legislators), agencies treat guidance as binding and courts often fail to stop them.

CASE SUMMARY

Ms. Reid was a renowned debater employed by JMU as a full-time faculty member and Assistant Director of the “Individual Events Team” to assist with coaching, tournament travel, and community outreach. She was on track for her dream job as the team’s head coach.

In December 2018, Ms. Reid’s ex-girlfriend, another coach at JMU, lodged an unfounded and ambiguous “Title IX Statement” against her with JMU. That “Statement” did not conform to JMU’s written policies for intaking, investigating, and responding to Title IX complaints. Because of the document’s obvious deficiencies, JMU’s Title IX Director defined the nature of the accusations against Ms. Reid herself, creating claims of a non-consensual relationship out of whole cloth. JMU then pursued an unconstitutional process based on the wrong policies, depriving Ms. Reid of notice and due process rights. It compounded the due process problems by failing to provide Ms. Reid with accurate information about the accusations against her,  punishing her prior to the hearing, not requiring her accuser to attend in person, prohibiting Ms. Reid from cross-examining or otherwise confronting her accuser, and violating her constitutional right to a fair hearing. 

JMU structured its Title IX hearings based on ED’s guidance, often called the “2011 Dear Colleague Letter,” which was designed to enhance the likelihood that anyone accused of sexual harassment or misconduct would face discipline—regardless of guilt or innocence. As a result, Ms. Reid never had a full and fair opportunity to challenge the validity of the charges against her, with the JMU defendants applying standards that flouted due process and were not in place during the relationship. 

Despite withdrawing its offending and infamous “Dear Colleague Letter,” the Department of Education simultaneously sought to avoid responsibility for the harms its unlawful prior guidance had caused under these “kangaroo courts.” 

OUR CLIENT

Alyssa Reid, Plaintiff

OUR TEAM

John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Memorandum Opinion of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia

August 5, 2024 | Read More

Order of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia

August 5, 2024 | Read More

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss

April 4, 2024 | Read More

Ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

January 9, 2024 | Read More

Appellant’s Reply Brief

October 25, 2022 | Read More

SEE 15 FILINGS
PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Appeals Title IX Lawsuit Against James Madison University to Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

July 19, 2022 | Read More

Watch: NCLA Sues James Madison Univ. and U.S. Dept. of Ed. over Weaponized Title IX Investigation

May 3, 2021 | Read More

IN THE MEDIA

2 Women Dated For Years. After It Ended, JMU Said Their Relationship Was Nonconsensual.

February 6, 2023

Make University Administrators Pay and Watch Things Change

February 6, 2023

Strong Due Process Protections Are Essential for the Protection of Vulnerable Campus Groups

February 6, 2023

Female survivor/LGBTQ advocate sues James Madison University for due process, Title IX violations, Title IX For All

February 6, 2023

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.