Notre Dame law student loses injunction for readmission
Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A former Notre Dame Law student who was involuntarily removed in his first semester will not gain readmission next fall by way of a preliminary injunction.
Judge Philip P. Simon of the Indiana Northern District Court denied Bryce Daniels’ motion for a preliminary injunction against Notre Dame Law School on Feb. 5.
According to Simon’s order, Daniels enrolled at Notre Dame Law in the fall of 2021 but, according to Daniels’ telling, was dismissed following “a very flawed process based on the meritless (even ridiculous, as he tells it) Title IX complaint by a Jane Doe with whom he had only the barest acquaintance but who developed a sudden and inextricable hostility toward him.”
But according to Notre Dame, “Various university officials have attested to receiving statements from several witnesses about Daniels making suicidal comments as well as threatening statements about other students, and having ready access to firearms, all of which triggered an emergency removal process.
“Notre Dame insists that (even at this preliminary stage) it is ‘indisputable that [Daniels] was not dismissed from Notre Dame, much less dismissed as a result of a disciplinary process (or a Title IX process),’ but instead he was ‘involuntarily withdrawn from Notre Dame as a result of the University’s Threat Assessment & Management Team’s independent determination, made months before Plaintiff was disciplined in any way, that he posed a potentially imminent threat of harm to himself or others.’”
Daniels brought claims of gender discrimination and breach of contract, but Simon found no likelihood of success on either.
“There is simply no evidence, for example, that Notre Dame received similar reports about any female student who was not, as a result, removed from the university,” Simon wrote. “In the absence of such evidence, I cannot conclude that Daniels has established a likelihood of success on his Title IX discrimination claim.
“Similarly, in light of Notre Dame’s convincing showing of a public safety basis for Daniels’ removal from the university, Daniels has not shown that any procedural shortcomings of the Title IX process will entitle him to relief on a breach of contract theory either,” the judge continued. “On the record before me, Daniels is also unlikely to succeed on a breach of contract claim based on a contention that in removing him, Notre Dame acted in bad faith, arbitrarily or capriciously.”
Simon also rejected Daniels’ argument that the lapse of time between his removal and requested reenrollment would cause irreparable harm, noting that Daniels was removed from the law school in the fall of 2021 but did not file suit until August 2022. His motion for a preliminary injunction was filed in December 2023.
“Where Daniels has no mitigating explanation,” Simon wrote, “this considerable delay suggests that time is not of the essence, and weighs against any finding that Daniels is suffering irreparable harm.”
Further, “The gap in Daniels’ education has already occurred and cannot be precluded by the injunction he requests.”
Also, “Any speculation about lasting damage to Daniels’ reputation or career prospects is ‘too speculative to satisfy the irreparable harm requirement.’”
“Finally, any attempt to demonstrate irreparable harm founders on the fact that Daniels has not availed himself of the opportunity to seek readmission to Notre Dame Law School short of litigation,” Simon concluded. “Both parties agree that Daniels has now satisfied the conditions that were imposed on him as (a) result of the post-departure conduct process, so that he is eligible to reapply for admission.”