Whether a state university may impose a mandatory psychiatric examination as a condition of continued enrollment without violating a student's constitutional due process rights and disability discrimination protections

No question identified. : States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Doe presents that order in this application and requests this court to honor its mandates. Jurisdiction in the United States Supreme Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1254 because Doe’s case arises from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. IL Background Doe seeks review of the opinion and order issued by U.S. Dist. Judge P.K. Holmes, III and affirmed by the Eighth Circuit in her case against The Board of Trustees for the University of Arkansas and Donald Bobbitt, President and CEO, Respondents hereinafter. See App. A. Petitioner, Joan Doe, was a law student at the outset of this litigation; she has since graduated. Respondents are the parties capable of suit for the injuries created by Doe’s law school. Prior to law school Doe earned an MBA and enjoyed a fifteen year career at a Fortune 500 company that often ranked in the Fortune’s top ten during Doe’s tenure there. Doe held positions in buying, strategy and insight, and in the treasury office. Doe Spent nearly a decade of her tenure with the company working as an information technology project manager where she led teams of world class engineers and developers that implemented tax compliance projects (Mexico, China, United Kingdom), digital payment systems (Latin America, Mexico), and initiated distribution centers (India). For the stateside platform, Doe managed a $200 million dollar budget and a team of 88 engineers and developers to transform the U.S. distribution center network, completing over 550 enterprise level system changes with a 99.98% success rate. Doe received numerous company awards, including Divisional Champion, a designation voted on by the information technology division’s senior leaders and officers. For Doe, going to law school had been a lifelong dream. Doe realized that dream in 2018 when she enrolled at the University of Arkansas School of Law. Doe juggled family commitments and the return to higher academia for a successful 1L year. During her 2L year, Doe withdrew to respond to her family member’s medical crisis that required treatment out of state. When circumstances allowed Doe’s reenrollment, the law school had migrated to an online only format in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Doe returned to law school from Pennsylvania, where she’d taken her family member to receive treatment. Doe’s final semester of her 3L year occurred in the fall of 2021. The law school’s curriculum required Doe’s physical presence on campus for a writing course. Shortly after returning to Arkansas Doe began experiencing harassment. When the harassment occurred on campus and inside the law school building, Doe reported it to four professors via email. At the time of the report Doe had a spotless conduct and academic record and fewer than 90 days remaining until graduation. Doe reported that she experienced the use of some sort of electronic weapon. Doe asked the law school for an investigation and for a designated safe place to study inside the law school. Respondents deemed Doe’s report an indication that she was mentally and emotionally unstable, and thus no longer qualified for their program. Respondents did not claim that Doe’s report included violent or threatening speech or that Doe’s behavior presented any safety concerns. Respondents did not claim that Doe presented an attendance or academic performance problem. Respondents stated they had no authority to conduct an investigation and declined to provide Doe a designated palace to study in the law school building. Using their essential eligibility criteria as justification, Respondents required Doe to submit to a psychiatric exam and release the records of the exam to an uncontracted third-party who would release the records to the law school, thus allowing the law school to evade FERPA violations. When Doe refused, Respondents suspended her without notice for eight months. Doe remains free of any finding