Table 4.

Summary of US Supreme Court’s Decisions in Horowitz and Ewing.^1,2

There are strong policy considerations for allowing academic institutions wide latitude, especially in the field of medicine, in developing academic standards and insuring student compliance with the standards.

Academic institutions are in the best position versus a judicial hearing to determine whether a student’s performance meets the profession’s requirements.

Dismissal of a student for academic reasons requires expert evaluation of cumulative facts.

Courts are particularly ill equipped to evaluate academic performance. Judicial review of purely academic decisions is not warranted. Courts lack the professional judgment on what characteristics are appropriate for the practice of medicine.

Student dismissal based on academic and professional factors is subjective in nature.

Courts should defer to the faculty’s professional judgment in purely academic decisions.

Courts should not overrule an institution’s decision unless the institution’s decision deviates from acceptable academic norms raising concerns that the institution did not exercise professional judgment.

Due process is an extremely flexible concept when applied to educational decision-making.

School decisions that are arbitrary and capricious or where the student was not notified are issues for a judicial venue.

The amount of due process owed is based on whether a case is framed as academic vs nonacademic (disciplinary).

For purely academic dismissals in the education arena, a formal hearing is not required where a student’s liberty or property interest is at risk. For disciplinary (nonacademic) dismissals, that are objective and factual, a hearing is required.

A school’s decision to dismiss a student, where the entire student record has been reviewed, due process provided, and the institution complied with its own policies are usually upheld in litigation.