Facts
Therese Reilly began her journey as a student at the Indiana University Medical School, where he enrolled in Medical Pharmacology. During her final examination, the two directors of the Pharmacology Department, Professors Lynn Willis and Joseph DiMicco suspected unusual behavior from where Reilly sat doing her exam. Reilly had positioned herself facing another student seated beside her, and it made the professor believe that she was either copying or attempting to copy.
At the end of the exam, the supervising professor took the paper of the Reilly and the other student who sat beside her. They compared the exams of two students and tried to determine if the two marched answers in any way. Surprisingly the first twenty-seven multiple choices question had matching answers. It was good to prove for the professor, and this made them believe Reilly and the other student cheated on the exam.
Later on, Reilly was given “F” as the final grade in the course that indicated he failed in the exam. Reilly was not comfortable with the final evaluation, and even after protesting to the professors, they reaffirmed their final decision that she had cheated, and they had enough evidence. Reilly tried to appeal this decision from the Chairman of the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology.
With the help of a counsel, Reilly was forced to appear at the Committee hearing. The Committee voted to dismiss Reilly from the School of Medicine because she already had grade “F” in her medical school career. The committee sends the recommendation of dismissal to the Dean of School, and in the end, Reilly was dismissed out of the School. It did not end at this point. What happened next?
Reilly decided to move to the courts and filed a complaint against the entire school of Indiana University, including the Committee that dismissed her, dean of the School, the department of medicine, and the two Professors, Lynn Willis and Joseph DiMicco. She requested a temporary restraining order, “preliminary injunction and permanent injunction against enforcement of the School’s decision.” She was temporarily granted a restraining order but denied a preliminary injunction.
Issues
Did the Indiana University School violate the Constitution after dismissing Reilly out of the University?
The trial court granted a temporary restraining order, but was it right to deny her request for a preliminary injunction?
Decision
No. Indiana University School did not violate the Constitution because the school Committee recommended the dismissal of Reilly.
Yes. The court did not violate the Constitution by denying her request for a preliminary injunction.
Reasoning
The Court had the powers to issue or grant a preliminary injunction and as well deny Reilly’s case. The court did the right thing by issuing a temporary restraining order, and it did not violate the Constitution by denying her request for a preliminary injunction. The case of a preliminary injunction does happen in “rare instances in which the law and facts are clearly within the moving party’s favor.” A court can grant or deny a preliminary injunctive relief when:
“The plaintiff’s remedies at law are inadequate, thus causing irreparable harm pending the resolution of the substantive action if the injunction does not issue.”
“The plaintiff has demonstrated at least a reasonable likelihood of success at trial by establishing a prima facie case.”
“The threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm the grant of the injunction may inflict on the defendant.”
“The grant of the preliminary injunction, the public interest would be disserved.”
Reilly’s claims were unreasonable; that is why her trial did not succeed. It makes us believe that “the trial court was within its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief.”
Analysis
It believes that “the trial court was within its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief,” and it makes sense under the Constitution. Reilly based her argument on the Fourteenth Amendment in that the University violated her right by denying her the opportunity to question the two Professors who supervised the exam, and again they failed to appear before the Student Promotions Committee during her case. She also felt the case was “vague and overbroad standard” because of charging her with “violating a rule which prohibits the appearance of cheating.” The judge also had no “clear and convincing standard of proof” to put her in a trial.
According to The Fourteenth Amendment, “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of *444 law.” I found that this amendment protected the liberty and property of any student’s interest in pursuing an education. But in the case of Reilly, she was under disciplinary action, that is why I think she was dismissed from the University. The Court had failed to follow “traditional formalities of legal proceedings in-school suspension and dismissal hearings,” like giving the suspect opportunity to respond, explain, and defend herself. That is why Reilly argued that she was denied the right to equal protection.