Hartzell v. S.O.

672 S.W.3d 304

University of Texas at Austin President Jay HARTZELL, et al., Petitioners,

v.S.O., Respondent

consolidated for oral argument with

Texas State University President Denise M. Trauth, et al., Petitioners,

v.K.E., Respondent

No. 20-0811

No. 20-0812

Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued September 20, 2022

OPINION DELIVERED: March 31, 2023

Brent Webster, Houston, Ryan Lee Bangert, Judd E. Stone II, Bill Davis, Austin, Michael R. Abrams, Kyle Hawkins, Houston, Evan S. Greene, Warren Kenneth Paxton, Austin, for Petitioners.

John W. Rudinger Jr., Kyle Carney, Gaines F. West II, College Station, for Amicus Curiae West, Gaines.

David Kenneth Sergi, San Marcos, Anita Kawaja, for Respondent O., S.

Marshall Bowen, Amanda G. Taylor, Austin, David Kenneth Sergi, San Marcos, D. Todd Smith, Scott K. Field, Austin, for Respondent E., K.

Justice Lehrmann delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Hecht, Justice Busby, Justice Bland, Justice Huddle, and Justice Young joined.

The principal issue in these two ultra vires suits, which we consolidated for oral argument, is whether state university officials have the statutory authority to revoke a former student's degree upon concluding that the former student engaged in academic misconduct in pursuit of that degree. The same court of appeals held in both suits that no such authority exists and affirmed the trial courts’ denials of the university officials’ jurisdictional pleas as to the pertinent claims. We disagree and reverse those portions of the court's judgments. Because no other claims remain pending in 20-0811, we dismiss that case for lack of jurisdiction. However, we agree with the court of appeals that the due-process claims in 20-0812 may continue. Accordingly, we affirm that judgment in part and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

I. Background

A. 20-0812

K.E. is a former graduate student at Texas State University. She enrolled in the doctoral program of the University's biology department in 2006. Her dissertation involved analyzing data collected in the field using a leaf gas analyzer called a LiCor instrument. K.E. presented and successfully defended her dissertation, and in May 2011 the University conferred on K.E. a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) with a major in aquatic resources.

After K.E. graduated, while she and her doctoral advisor were collaborating on a journal article, the advisor found inconsistencies in K.E.’s dissertation research data that led the advisor to believe K.E. had manipulated the data. Unsatisfied with K.E.’s explanations for both the discrepancies and some missing original LiCor data files, the advisor notified Dr. Michael Blanda, Assistant Vice President for Research and Federal Relations, of her suspicion that K.E. had falsified the data and the basis for that suspicion. K.E. submitted a response to Dr. Blanda through her attorney. Based on those submissions, the University commenced an investigation into the advisor's allegations of academic misconduct. That investigation proceeded as follows:

• Dr. Blanda appointed a three-member Committee of Inquiry.

• The committee held a meeting with K.E., whose attorney and forensic expert were present. K.E. submitted additional documentation to the committee after the meeting.

• The committee submitted a detailed report recommending a full investigation, and K.E. submitted a written response to the report.

• Based on those submissions, the University formally charged K.E. with "misconduct in research and scholarship" while a student at the University.

• K.E. was sent written notice of the formal charges, the procedures to be followed by the three-member Investigating Committee, and K.E.’s right to appeal.

• The Investigating Committee conducted a two-day hearing with a court reporter present. K.E. was represented by counsel, called witnesses, cross-examined witnesses, and submitted written documents for the committee's consideration.

• The Investigating Committee found by a preponderance of the evidence that K.E. committed misconduct in research and scholarship by falsifying and fabricating data in her dissertation, and it recommended that the University revoke her Ph.D.

• K.E. appealed the findings to University President Denise M. Trauth, who affirmed the decision and recommended to the Texas State University System Board of Regents that it revoke K.E.’s degree at its quarterly meeting.

• K.E. submitted a written dispute of the recommendation to the Board, and at her attorney's request the Board heard the appeal in executive session.

• The Board affirmed Trauth's recommendation to revoke K.E.’s degree.

Following the Board's action, Trauth notified K.E. that a notation of that action had been placed on her transcript, and Trauth requested that K.E. cease representing herself as holding a Ph.D. from the University and return her doctoral diploma to the registrar. K.E. then sued Trauth, Blanda, the registrar, and the members of the Board of Regents in their official capacities.¹ In her live pleading, she asserted ultra vires claims against the University officials based on their alleged lack of authority to revoke her degree. She further claimed that the process the University officials employed to revoke the degree did not afford her due course of law under the Texas Constitution.² She sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order requiring the University officials to reinstate her degree.³

The University officials filed a plea to the jurisdiction on sovereign-immunity grounds, arguing that they had legal authority to revoke K.E.’s degree for cause and that K.E. failed to plead a viable constitutional claim in light of the process she was afforded. In response, K.E. asserted that Texas law does not authorize revocation of her degree "outside of a court of competent jurisdiction" and that the University officials must seek contractual remedies in court "because a Ph.D. is a protected property and liberty interest." She alternatively argued that, even if the University officials had authority to revoke her degree, she was subjected to "fundamentally flawed proceedings" that denied her due course of law. The trial court denied the plea, and the University officials appealed. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(8) (authorizing an interlocutory appeal from an order that grants or denies a governmental unit's plea to the jurisdiction).

A divided court of appeals affirmed, holding that K.E.’s pleadings alleged an ultra vires claim against the University officials that was not barred by sovereign immunity. 613 S.W.3d 222, 232 (Tex. App.—Austin 2020). Examining the statutes governing the Texas State University System, the court of appeals held that they neither expressly nor impliedly authorize revocation of a student's degree after it has been conferred. Id. at 228–31.⁴ The court also rejected the University officials’ argument that K.E. sought only retrospective relief, which would foreclose an otherwise proper ultra vires claim. Id. at 231–32. Justice Kelly dissented, opining that the Board "has the authority to revoke a former student's degree for academic dishonesty so long as, as relevant here, it affords due process under the United States Constitution and due course of law under the Texas Constitution." Id. at 233 (Kelly, J., dissenting).

B. 20-0811

S.O. enrolled in The University of Texas in 2003 as a graduate student working toward a Ph.D. in chemistry. Her dissertation research involved efforts to develop multistep synthetic routes to natural products, including lundurine products. S.O. presented and successfully defended her dissertation, and in May 2008 the University conferred on S.O. a Ph.D.

In 2012, S.O.’s graduate advisor, Professor Stephen Martin, brought a complaint against her for academic misconduct relating to some of the data reported in her dissertation.⁵ The University formed a committee to investigate the allegations, and the committee concluded 2–1 that S.O. engaged in scientific misconduct. The committee's findings were referred to S.O.’s dissertation committee to, "at a minimum, ensure that the dissertation reflects the actual results of her research." With one member declining to participate, the dissertation committee determined that S.O.’s degree was improperly awarded and should be revoked. According to S.O., she "was not accorded notice of the cause or causes presented to the dissertation committee," "was not provided with the materials that the dissertation committee considered in reaching its decision," and "was not provided the opportunity to be heard by the dissertation committee to address and defend the integrity of her dissertation."

In February 2014, S.O. was informed of the decision to revoke her degree and immediately filed suit, alleging that the University's actions violated her constitutional rights and seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent any disciplinary action against her. Before the TRO hearing, the parties entered into a Rule 11 agreement specifying that the University would restore S.O.’s degree while the parties discussed "additional process." Shortly thereafter, the University notified S.O. that it was initiating the student-discipline process to address the investigative committee's findings and the dissertation committee's subsequent recommendation. Included with the notice was a copy of the University's rules pertaining to student conduct and discipline. The University then filed a plea to the jurisdiction on mootness grounds, the trial court granted the plea, and the court of appeals affirmed. [S.O.] v.Univ. of Tex. at Austin , No. 03-14-00299-CV, 2015 WL 5666200, at *5 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 23, 2015, no pet.).

The University subsequently notified S.O. that a disciplinary hearing was scheduled for January 29, 2016. The notice stated that S.O. was charged with violating sections of the Board of Regents’ and the University's Rules and Regulations governing academic dishonesty based on allegations...