Michael v. University
The main issue in this case is whether the University violated procedural due process by depriving Michael of a protected liberty and property to a hearing, and concluding without a hearing to challenge to the University's claim of cheating by Michaels.
This is a due process case. Procedural Due Process is in the 14th Amendment - Section 1. "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." (pp. 31 & 671). The definition of liberty and property: "...a vast scope of personal rights. It also infers the absence of arbitrary and unreasonable government restraints and anything that is subject to ownership such as legal entitlement, public education and other intangibles." (p. 24)
"The due process guarantee protects people from unfairness in the operation of both substantive and procedural law. Procedural law prescribes the method used to enforce legal rights. It provides the machinery by which individuals can enforce their rights or obtain redress for the invasion of such rights." (p.24) Courts generally try to balance accuracy against its cost on a case-by-case basis. This is done since procedural due process rights cost the government time and money.
The Court examined this issue in Speelman v. Bellingham Housing Authority (2012), where the Bellingham Housing Authority failed to notify Speelman of termination of her housing benefits, even after they knew of her incarceration location. Speelman was asking for her due process and her opportunity to be heard. The Court ruled in favor of Speelman after her Due Process was violated when they denied her a hearing of a preliminary injunction.
Since the University had dismissed Michael from the university and refused to refund his tuition without allowing him to argue his side in the court, Michaels due process rights were violated. One can argue that the University policy is if any student is caught cheating, they could be subject to dismissal. In a civil matter, due process still applies when one party is denying another party of financial refund without affording the opportunity to argue the case in court.
The court should rule in favor of Michael.