Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing

Background

A medical student enrolled in the University of Michigan’s Inteflex program failed Part I of the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) with a low score and was dropped by the Promotion and Review Board. He asked to retake the exam, was denied by the Executive Committee, and sued the Regents claiming state contract and promissory-estoppel rights and a federal property interest in continued enrollment under the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court found he had a poor academic record, assumed a property interest but found no arbitrary action, and the Court of Appeals ordered a retest and reinstatement.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined whether the university’s refusal to allow a retest and the resulting dismissal amounted to an arbitrary deprivation of a property interest. The Court accepted, for argument’s sake, that the student might have a protectible property interest but held the record did not show arbitrary action. Faculty had reviewed the student’s entire academic history and acted in good faith. The Court emphasized that judges must defer to academic judgments unless the decision is a marked departure from accepted academic norms, and it explained that a routine campus practice to allow retests does not automatically create an enforceable property right under state law.

Real world impact

The decision makes it harder for students to use federal constitutional claims to force retests or reinstatement based on customary campus practices. Public universities gain clearer protection from federal courts second-guessing academic judgments, and informal campus policies are less likely to become enforceable constitutional rights.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Powell’s concurrence stressed caution: he agreed with the outcome but said it was unnecessary to assume a constitutional substantive-due-process right and warned against recognizing new constitutional property rights in routine academic matters.