⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fifth Circuit takes up Jane Doe's challenge to her dismissal from the University of Texas at San Antonio's orthodontics residency. Faculty members had raised concerns about her clinical performance and professional conduct. She was placed on a remediation plan, then probation, and later removed from the program. A July dismissal notice and an August meeting are central to the dispute. Doe will acknowledge that she knew of earlier clinical concerns. But she will contend that the July letter added an accusation of inconsistent statements without explaining the conduct well enough for her to answer. School officials will answer that prior feedback, evaluations, and counseling already gave her meaningful notice and opportunities to respond. Doe sued for reinstatement, alleging that the process violated her constitutional rights. The district court rejected her procedural due process claim, concluding that the alleged facts showed constitutionally sufficient notice and academic review. This is an appeal from dismissal of her complaint, not a verdict after a trial. Procedural due process concerns the notice and opportunity to respond that the Constitution requires. An academic dismissal does not automatically require a formal hearing. Still, the parties dispute whether the notices and opportunities provided here were sufficient. A separate part of the argument concerns standing: whether the particular faculty officials sued could remedy her injury by restoring her place in the program. Keep that power-to-grant-relief question separate from whether her specific due process claim has merit.

Doe v. University of Texas (No. 26-50226) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.