“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A university student sued the university for deliberate indifference to danger posed by a student who raped her.
What happened in this case?
Isabelle Arana, a freshman at the University of Wisconsin, was raped by another student, Quentez Cephus. The university initially took action, including providing accommodations to Arana and expelling Cephus from campus. Cephus was then acquitted in state court of related criminal charges, and received significant support from alumni and others who wanted to promote his playing football for the university, which then readmitted him. The university refused to provide additional safety protections beyond a no-contact order.
Arana sued the university under Title IX for being deliberately indifferent to known acts of sexual harassment by a fellow student, Cephus. A district court granted summary judgment against her, and she appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which decided that the full court would hear the case en banc.
In July, Trump judge Thomas Kirsch wrote an 8-4 decision that affirmed the decision below and rejected Arana’s claims in Arana v Board of Regents of Univ. of Wisc. All four other Trump judges joined Kirsch’s opinion, including Judges Brennan, Scudder, St.Eve, and Taibleson. They claimed the record showed that the university had “reasonably” responded to the “student-on-student harassment,” and that summary judgment was appropriate. Judges Jackson-Akiwumi, Rovner, Pryor, and Maldonado dissented.
Why did Judge Jackson-Akiwumi and three other Seventh Circuit judges dissent?
Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, who was nominated by President Biden, strongly dissented, along with three other judges nominated by both Democratic and Republican presidents. She harshly criticized the majority for “skewing the facts” in the record “in the University’s favor,” instead of following accepted principles that require a court to “draw all inferences in Arana’s favor as the non-moving party” on summary judgment. Those included inferences that could be drawn from the University’s failure to explain its readmission decision, alleged pressure for readmission from donors and the public, and potential for violation of and/or lack of enforcement of the no contact order. Based on her careful review of the record and applicable precedent Jackson-Akiwumi concluded that it clearly contained “evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the University responded to Arana’s assault with deliberate indifference.” The case, therefore, should have been sent to a jury to decide on the merits.
Why is the decision harmful?
The decision made possible by all five Trump judge on the Seventh Circuit obviously harms Isabelle Arana and her effort to seek justice from the University for the serious harm she suffered. It also sets a bad precedent concerning University responsibility for taking action on student-on-student harassment, particularly in the Seventh Circuit, which includes Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. In addition, it illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.