Here’s what North Carolina universities owe students, where the protections run thin, and why that matters.

Public vs. Private: The Threshold Question

A student’s rights depend almost entirely on whether the school is public or private.

Students at public universities in North Carolina have constitutional due process rights because their schools are state actors. The Fourteenth Amendment applies. Before the government deprives students of a protected interest—and a university education, once underway, is one—it must provide meaningful process.

Students at private universities have no constitutional claim. Their rights come from the school’s own policies, which create a contract between the student and the institution. If a private university fails to follow its own procedures, the remedy is a breach of contract claim—far weaker and harder to win than a constitutional violation.

Everything below focuses on public universities. If you’re at a private school, the starting point is your student handbook, not the Constitution.

What the Constitution Requires: The Baseline

In Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), the Supreme Court held that before a public school suspends a student even briefly, it must give notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond. That’s the constitutional minimum.

For serious discipline, such as suspension or expulsion, courts require more. In Jones v. Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina, 704 F.2d 713 (4th Cir. 1983), the Fourth Circuit affirmed that students have a protectable interest in continued enrollment and that federal courts exist to ensure “rudimentary precautions against unfair or mistaken findings of misconduct.” More recently, the Fourth Circuit has held that a student facing permanent expulsion from a state university system on sexual misconduct grounds properly alleged a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest, triggering full due process analysis. See Doe v. University of North Carolina System, 133 F.4th 305, 317 (2025).

Across these cases, the requirements for imposing serious sanctions have consistently included:

• Written notice of the specific charges with enough detail to prepare a response
• Adequate time between notice and hearing
• An opportunity to be heard before a panel that has not prejudged the outcome
• Some mechanism to respond to the evidence against them
• A written decision explaining the basis for the outcome

Courts have repeatedly held that university disciplinary proceedings are not criminal proceedings, and the process owed is calibrated accordingly. The Constitution does not give students the right to formal cross-examination, application of the Federal Rules of Evidence, or anything resembling a criminal trial.

What the UNC System Policy Actually Provides

UNC System Policy 700.4.1 sets minimum standards that all constituent institutions must meet. The details vary by campus. Each school implements the policy through its own Code of Student Conduct, but the system-wide floor includes:

Notice. Students must receive written notice of the charges, the conduct at issue, and the potential sanctions. For serious violations, the hearing date may not be scheduled fewer than ten calendar days after the student receives that notice, unless the student agrees to an earlier date.

Hearing. Students have the right to appear before a hearing body, present their account, and offer relevant information. Both the university and the student may present witness testimony and documents, and both must be present during all evidentiary presentation. The decision must be based solely on evidence presented at the hearing, under a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Written decision. The final administrative decision must be issued within 45 calendar days of the hearing and transmitted to the student in writing within 10 calendar days of the decision, with a brief summary of the evidence supporting it.

An advisor—and in most cases, an attorney who can fully participate. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 116-40.11, students at UNC System schools have the right to be represented by a licensed attorney or non-attorney advocate who may fully participate in any disciplinary procedure. The right to a participating attorney has two exceptions: (1) proceedings before a Student Honor Court fully staffed by students, and (2) allegations of academic dishonesty as defined by the institution. Outside those two categories, North Carolina law gives a student’s attorney an active role, not just a seat in the corner.

Appeal. At least one level of institutional appeal must be permitted. The decision letter must specify the grounds for appeal and the time to file. Further appellate review is governed by Section 502(D)(3) of the UNC Code.

Confidentiality. Proceedings are not public. The Family Educational Privacy Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, protects student education records, though records created and maintained by a university’s own law enforcement unit fall outside FERPA’s definition of “education records” entirely, meaning those records can be disclosed without the protections that apply to disciplinary records. Disclosure of disciplinary records to outside law enforcement can also occur pursuant to a court order or subpoena, and in genuine health or safety emergencies.

Where the Protections Fall Short

Knowing the rights on paper matters less than knowing where the system breaks down in practice.

The “impartial” decision-maker problem. Hearing panels are composed of university employees and, at some schools, students. They are trained and employed by the institution bringing the charges. Courts have generally found this structure constitutional. In student conduct cases, the neutrality you’d expect from a judge or jury simply isn’t present. Demonstrating actual bias requires more than showing that panel members work for the university.

The evidence problem. Universities are not bound by the rules of evidence. Hearsay, unverified screenshots, and second-hand accounts can all come in. A student who doesn’t know how to object or make arguments about the evidence can find the hearing shaped by evidence that wouldn’t survive in a courtroom.

The attorney-participation exceptions. The right to a fully participating attorney does not apply in Student Honor Court proceedings or academic dishonesty cases. If a student’s school routes charges through one of those mechanisms, you may be limited to an advisor who can consult but not speak. Knowing in advance which process applies to your charges matters.

The written record problem. Many universities do not produce a verbatim transcript of disciplinary hearings. Some record audio; some produce summaries. If you later challenge the outcome in court, you may be working from an incomplete or institution-generated record of what happened.

The timeline problem. Schools move on their own schedule. A student can be removed from housing, placed on interim suspension, or banned from campus before any hearing takes place. Interim measures are supposed to be reserved for genuine safety concerns. The UNC System policy requires an individualized assessment, but the standard is applied inconsistently, and a student sitting out of class for weeks before a hearing has already suffered real harm.

What This Means If You’re Facing Charges

The procedural rights you have are real. At public universities in North Carolina, they are more substantial than many students realize, particularly the right under state law to an attorney who can actively participate, not merely observe. But those rights exist on paper and realizing them in practice requires knowing how to use them.

An attorney who understands university disciplinary proceedings can identify procedural defects before they’re waived, ensure the university is complying with both its own policies and statutory and constitutional requirements, and in many cases participate actively in the hearing on your behalf.

The hearing is not the end. If the outcome is wrong, internal appeals and, in appropriate cases, judicial review remains available. But those remedies are far easier to pursue if the hearing itself was conducted properly and the record reflects what happened.

Erin Wilson represents students and families in university disciplinary proceedings across North Carolina. If you or your student is facing charges, contact Cheshire Parker Schneider & Abrams & Abrams for a consultation.

In McCollum et al. v. Robeson County et al., half-brothers Henry McCollum and Leon Brown brought suit after spending more than three decades in prison—much of it on death row—for a crime they did not commit. The case exposed years of police misconduct, including coerced confessions, fabrication of evidence, and the suppression of exculpatory information that would have pointed to another suspect.

The brothers were exonerated in 2014 after the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission obtained and tested DNA evidence from the crime scene, which implicated another man who had already been convicted of a similar crime. Following their exoneration, McCollum and Brown filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against officers from the Red Springs Police Department, the Robeson County Sheriff’s Office, and the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation.

After years of hard-fought litigation, the trial team obtained a unanimous jury verdict awarding $75 million in compensatory damages, along with additional settlement payments, to help the brothers rebuild their lives after decades of wrongful incarceration. The verdict also sent a powerful message about the consequences of official misconduct and the importance of accountability when law enforcement abuses its power.

In recognition of the result and the significance of the case, Public Justice named the McCollum trial team the winners of the 2022 Trial Lawyer of the Year Award. Public Justice highlighted the case as a landmark example of civil rights litigation that exposed “egregious” police corruption and abuse and secured a measure of justice for two men who spent decades in prison for a crime they did not commit.

Elliot’s work on this case reflects the firm’s commitment to taking on complex, high-stakes civil rights matters and pursuing full accountability for individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated. Cheshire Parker Schneider & Abrams & Abrams continues to represent clients in significant civil rights, criminal defense, and wrongful conviction cases across North Carolina and nationwide.

One of the most widely watched matters involved University of North Carolina wide receiver Tez Walker . The NCAA initially denied Walker’s eligibility under its transfer rules, prompting widespread criticism from coaches, fans, and public officials. Elliot played a leading role on the legal team challenging that decision, helping to marshal the factual and legal arguments that ultimately led the NCAA to reverse course and restore Walker’s eligibility.

Elliot’s NCAA practice extends well beyond a single case. He has represented numerous Division I student-athletes and coaches around the country in transfer eligibility disputes, waiver requests, name-image-and-likeness–related issues, and NCAA infractions investigations. In many of these matters, the stakes are enormous: the outcome can determine whether an athlete ever plays again at the college level, whether a coach is able to continue a career, or whether a program faces long-term competitive and reputational harm.

Elliot also brings deep experience with institutional NCAA cases. In the long-running academic investigation involving the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he successfully defended his client in proceedings before the NCAA Committee on Infractions, where the panel ultimately concluded it could not find academic violations under NCAA bylaws. That result underscored the importance of a disciplined, rules-based approach to NCAA enforcement and the need for institutions and individuals to have experienced counsel when facing high-profile allegations.

As transfer rules, name-image-and-likeness policies, and state laws continue to evolve, Elliot remains at the forefront of litigation and advocacy on behalf of athletes whose opportunities can be dramatically affected by NCAA decisions. Whether representing a nationally known football player, a coach, or a lesser-known athlete whose case raises important principles, Elliot and the firm are committed to protecting student-athletes’ rights and ensuring that eligibility decisions are made fairly and lawfully.

For decades, Marines, their families, and civilian workers at Camp Lejeune were exposed to drinking water contaminated with volatile organic compounds and other industrial chemicals. The Camp Lejeune Justice Act—enacted as part of the PACT Act—creates a path to compensation for people who lived or worked at the base for at least 30 days between 1953 and 1987 and later developed certain cancers and other serious health conditions.

Under the Act, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina has exclusive jurisdiction and venue over Camp Lejeune Justice Act lawsuits. As a result, thousands of cases from across the country have been filed in this one federal court, requiring coordinated management and leadership on behalf of plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee is responsible for developing and coordinating strategy for the litigation, handling common discovery, briefing key legal issues, and presenting bellwether cases that will help shape the resolution of claims going forward. Elliot’s service on this committee reflects both his experience in complex federal litigation and his commitment to seeking justice for service members, families, and others harmed by contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.

As this historic mass tort proceeds, Cheshire Parker Schneider & Abrams & Abrams will continue to advocate for fair and timely compensation for those whose lives have been altered by toxic exposures at the base, while working to ensure that the promises of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act are fulfilled in practice.

Before Chamberlain, the Fourth Circuit stood alone among federal appellate courts in allowing the government to freeze untainted assets before trial under Section 853, based on the view that those assets could later be forfeited as “substitute property” if directly forfeitable proceeds were unavailable. In practice, this meant that people accused of crimes could see their legitimate savings, business interests, or other lawfully obtained assets frozen long before any conviction—often impairing their ability to hire counsel of choice or support their families while the case was pending.

In its published opinion, the Fourth Circuit carefully examined the text and structure of Section 853, as well as decisions from other circuits and guidance from the Supreme Court. The court ultimately concluded that Section 853(e) authorizes pretrial restraint only of property “described in Section 853(a)”—that is, tainted property directly connected to the alleged offense—and not untainted substitute assets. The court expressly overruled its earlier cases that had permitted pretrial restraint of substitute property and vacated the restraining order entered against the defendant’s innocent assets.

The Chamberlain decision brought the Fourth Circuit into alignment with the overwhelming majority of federal courts and significantly strengthened protections for individuals facing federal charges whose lawfully obtained property had previously been at risk of being frozen before trial. The ruling also clarified important statutory limits on the government’s forfeiture powers and reinforced the principle that untainted assets should not be restrained absent clear congressional authorization.

Elliot’s work in this case reflects the firm’s broader commitment to challenging overreach in asset forfeiture and defending clients’ property rights at every stage of a criminal investigation or prosecution. Cheshire Parker Schneider & Abrams & Abrams continues to litigate forfeiture issues in trial and appellate courts, seeking to protect clients’ ability to maintain control over their assets and mount a full defense

• Brown v. Louisiana: This case revolves around whether a person’s confession that they and another individual committed a crime—without mentioning the defendant—is considered favorable and material evidence under Brady v. Maryland if the defendant denies participating in the crime. The outcome of this case could redefine the scope of evidence considered under Brady, affecting the presentation of evidence and disclosure obligations in future cases.
• Hamm v. Smith: The question at hand is whether an alternative method of execution is feasible and readily implemented simply because the executing state has statutorily authorized it, in the context of an Eighth Amendment method-of-execution case. The decision could affect the constitutionality of various execution methods and the burden of proof placed on inmates challenging those methods.
• Burns v. Mays: This case poses several questions relating to ineffective assistance claims in capital sentencing, including counsel’s failure to introduce residual doubt evidence, failure to establish the defendant’s lesser moral culpability, and postponing preparations for sentencing until a brief post-guilt phase recess. The outcome could have significant implications for the standards by which ineffective assistance claims are assessed and the preparation and presentation of evidence in capital cases.
• Hemphill v. New York: The Court will consider whether the improper admission of an out-of-court statement by an alternative suspect was so insignificant as to be harmless under Chapman v. California. This decision could further clarify the scope and application of the harmless-error doctrine and influence the admissibility of certain types of evidence in future trials.
• Pace v. U.S.: This case focuses on the interpretation of “and” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1), determining whether a defendant is eligible for the safety-valve provision in certain circumstances. The outcome could have a substantial impact on the application of this provision in future cases, affecting sentencing outcomes for numerous defendants.
• Herrera v. U.S.: The question at hand is whether, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, petitioners can bring a facial constitutional challenge to their statute of conviction under the Commerce Clause in a post-trial motion instead of a pretrial motion. The decision could shape the timing and procedure for raising constitutional challenges to statutes of conviction.
• Jones v. U.S.: This case will address whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires vacating a criminal conviction when the government refuses to seek immunity for a defense witness. The outcome could affect the government’s obligations regarding defense witnesses and the rights of defendants to present evidence.
• Pennington v. West Virginia: The Court will decide whether police can enter a home without probable cause that a person for whom they have an arrest warrant resides there and is currently present within. This decision could impact the Fourth Amendment protections afforded to individuals and the scope of police authority when executing arrest warrants.
• Mangine v. Withers: This case involves the availability of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) for federal prisoners challenging errors in their sentences and whether the erroneous deprivation of a statutory right to seek a sentence reduction constitutes a miscarriage of justice. The outcome could affect the availability and scope of relief for prisoners challenging their sentences.
• Wilkerson v. U.S.: The Court will consider whether the government must establish subjective intent to engage in unlawful conduct to convict a defendant of health care fraud and violation of the anti-kickback statute. The decision could clarify the required elements of these offenses, impacting the burden of proof on the government and potentially affecting the outcomes of future health care fraud and anti-kickback cases.
• Lazarenko v. U.S.: This case raises questions about the forfeiture of substitute property under 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) without determining whether the property is “tainted” or “untainted” and whether untainted property can be forfeited when tainted property is available. The outcome could influence how courts handle asset forfeiture in federal criminal cases and the types of property subject to forfeiture.
• Chestnut v. Allen: The Court will decide whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) limitations when overturning a state death sentence on the basis that the respondent’s mental health evidence was not given “meaningful consideration and effect” despite the judge stating he considered all mental health evidence. This decision could impact the standards by which federal courts review state court decisions in capital cases and the weight given to mental health evidence in capital sentencing.
• Moore v. U.S.: The question before the Court is whether long-term police use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person’s home and curtilage constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. The outcome of this case could affect the scope of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in the context of modern surveillance technology.

These petitions to the United States Supreme Court cover a broad range of legal issues related to federal criminal law. Their outcomes could significantly impact the rights of defendants, the obligations of law enforcement and prosecution, and the procedures employed in criminal cases. As lawyers focused on representing people in federal criminal matters, we will continue to monitor these cases and keep our clients and the public informed about their outcomes and implications.

The award was presented in Seattle in July 2022. 

The case involved two wrongly convicted men who each served 31 years in prison, mostly on death row, for a heinous crime that they did not commit.  After a five-day federal civil rights jury trial, the jury awarded the men $75 million.  The award was later increased to over $110 million to account for prejudgment interest and other costs that were taxed against the law enforcement officer defendants.  Other law enforcement officer defendants settled shortly before the end of the trial for $9 million.

The defendants in the case were the law enforcement officers who coerced false confessions from the two plaintiffs, who were then 15 and 19 years old.  The officers also covered up the fact that they had another suspect, who lived 38 feet from the crime scene and committed an unmistakably similar crime weeks later when the plaintiffs were in jail.  The wrongful conduct of these law enforcement officers caused these two innocent men to serve a combined 62 years in prison, mostly on death row, before they were exonerated.

The case has been covered extensively by the Washington Post, NY Times, the News & Observer, and by other outlets.

In addition to Elliot Abrams, special credit goes to the Raymond Tarlton, who was Guardian Ad Litem in the case; as well as to civil rights lawyer Liz Lockwood of Ali & Lockwood, LLP, and to the pro bono team at Hogan Lovells (Des Hogan, Cate Stetson, David Maxwell, and others), who shared in the award.

EGL Law Review Article- Howell