John Doe v. University of Southern Indiana

── John Doe v. University of Southern Indiana ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-2245 JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN INDIANA, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division. No. 3:21-cv-00144-TWP-CSW — Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED JULY 29, 2025 — DECIDED APRIL 13, 2026 ____________________ Before BRENNAN, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. We consider here an adult plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym in a lawsuit under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, which broadly prohibits sex discrimination in education programs or activities receiving federal funding. Plaintiff- appellant “John Doe” was a student at the University of Southern Indiana (USI) in the 2020–21 academic year. He was 2 No. 24-2245 the subject of a Title IX complaint accusing him of sexually assaulting another student. A hearing panel heard testimony from John, from the complaining student (we call her “Jane Doe”), and several other witnesses. The panel wrote that the issue was “whose version of events is more credible, as the details of each are irreconcilable.” The panel found that Jane’s account was more credible—in part because, in the panel’s view, her account had been “consistent over time” while John’s account had changed. The panel found by a preponderance of the evidence that John had committed “Rape and Forcible Fondling.” John was suspended from the university for three semesters in 2021. He has not returned since and has no intention of returning in the future. After the hearing panel’s decision, John quickly filed this lawsuit, which defendants removed to federal court. He has alleged that USI discriminated against males, including him, in violation of Title IX; that USI and other defendants deprived him of protected liberty and property interests without due process; and that defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him through outrageous conduct. The district court denied John’s request for a preliminary injunction, and this court affirmed. Doe v. University of Southern Indiana, 43 F.4th 784 (7th Cir. 2022). John then learned through discovery that Title IX officials at USI created memoranda of early conversations with John and Jane. Those memoranda showed at least arguably (1) that John’s account actually was consistent over time and (2) that Jane’s account was not consistent over time. USI had not disclosed those records to John or to any Title IX decisionmakers, thus calling into question the foundation for the hearing panel’s decision on the merits. In Title IX cases, No. 24-2245 3 however, federal courts do not conduct any direct appellate review of such decisions by educational institutions. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment for defendants on all of plaintiff’s claims. John has filed three appeals from decisions of the district court in Nos. 24-2245, 24-2318, and 24-2771. We consolidated the three appeals for argument before one panel. This appeal, No. 24-2245, challenges the district court’s order denying plaintiff the right to litigate under a pseudonym while keeping his real name confidential. Before we issue any decision on the jurisdictional or merits issues, we must confront the logically prior procedural issue: whether plaintiff may proceed under the John Doe pseudonym or whether he must instead proceed in this court using his real name. Magistrate Judge Wildman ordered plaintiff to litigate under his real name.