Does constitutional due process require that students accused of sexual assault be permitted the opportunity for attorney-led cross-examination of their accusers during public university disciplinary proceedings?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case presents two circuit splits: one involving a public university’s obligation to balance the due process rights of a student accused of sexual assault, including the right to attorney-led cross-examination of the complainant and other witnesses, with the rights of the complainant, including protecting the complainant from a generalized fear of potential trauma in a university disciplinary proceeding; and another regarding the proper pleading standard applicable to Title IX claims of sex bias in disciplinary proceedings. The questions are — 1. Does constitutional due process require that students accused of sexual assault be permitted the opportunity for attorney-led cross-examination of their accusers during public university disciplinary proceedings? 2. Isthe pleading standard for a statutory claim under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, simply whether the facts in the complaint, taken as true, plausibly support an inference that the university discriminated against a student on the basis of sex, or must the student plead additional facts to satisfy a doctrinal test, demonstrate that sex bias is the “most plausible” inference that may be drawn from the pleaded facts, and rebut any “obvious alternative explanations” for the challenged conduct? (i)