Legislative findings

The General Assembly finds that: (1) The United States Supreme Court held in "Goss v. Lopez", 419 U.S. 565, 574 (1975), that when a right is protected by the Due Process Clause, a state may not withdraw the right "on grounds of misconduct absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred..............."; (2) The principle opined upon in "Goss v. Lopez" was reemphasized in "Doe v. Purdue University", 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019), as authored by United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, noting that "a hearing must be a real one, not a sham or pretense", and that "even in the disciplinary context, the process due depends on a number of factors, including the severity of the consequence and the level of education ..............."; (3) The Eighth Circuit has opined in "Winegar v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist.", 20 F.3d 895, 899-900 (8th Cir. 1994), that the "fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner...............", which was originally declared by the United States Supreme Court in "Matthews v. Eldridge", 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976); (4) The Eighth Circuit has further asserted in "Esteban v. Central Missouri State College", 415 F.2d 1077, 1089 (8th Cir. 1969), that "procedural due process must be afforded by way of adequate notice, definite charge, and a hearing with opportunity to present one's own side of the case and with all necessary protective measures..............."; and (5) It is necessary to statutorily guarantee fundamentally fair procedures that will ensure disciplinary proceedings at institutions of higher education carry out the necessary steps to ensure constitutionally required due process. Added by Act 2023, No. 470,§ 2, eff. 8/1/2023.

The General Assembly finds that:

(1) The United States Supreme Court held in "Goss v. Lopez", 419 U.S. 565, 574 (1975), that when a right is protected by the Due Process Clause, a state may not withdraw the right "on grounds of misconduct absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred...............";

(2) The principle opined upon in "Goss v. Lopez" was reemphasized in "Doe v. Purdue University", 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019), as authored by United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, noting that "a hearing must be a real one, not a sham or pretense", and that "even in the disciplinary context, the process due depends on a number of factors, including the severity of the consequence and the level of education ...............";

(3) The Eighth Circuit has opined in "Winegar v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist.", 20 F.3d 895, 899-900 (8th Cir. 1994), that the "fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner...............", which was originally declared by the United States Supreme Court in "Matthews v. Eldridge", 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976);

(4) The Eighth Circuit has further asserted in "Esteban v. Central Missouri State College", 415 F.2d 1077, 1089 (8th Cir. 1969), that "procedural due process must be afforded by way of adequate notice, definite charge, and a hearing with opportunity to present one's own side of the case and with all necessary protective measures..............."; and

(5) It is necessary to statutorily guarantee fundamentally fair procedures that will ensure disciplinary proceedings at institutions of higher education carry out the necessary steps to ensure constitutionally required due process.

Added by Act 2023, No. 470,§ 2, eff. 8/1/2023.