Dutra v. Trustees of Boston University, 96 F.4th 15

Background

In Spring 2020, Boston University (BU) transitioned all classes and services to remote instruction due to COVID-19 and compliance with state emergency orders banning large gatherings.
Plaintiffs, full-time students enrolled for in-person classes, sued BU for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging they paid for but did not receive in-person instruction and services.
BU incurred significant additional expenses to provide remote education and continued to offer academic credit, resources, and services online.
The district court granted summary judgment for BU, citing impossibility of performance, and excluded plaintiffs’ expert testimony.
While the appeal was pending, Massachusetts enacted Section 80 ("Law 80") retroactively granting immunity to universities for Spring 2020 pandemic-related transitions if certain conditions are met.
The central appellate issue was whether retroactive application of Law 80 violates the Due Process Clause.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Law 80’s retroactive immunity violate due process?	Law 80 deprives students of vested contract rights and is not rationally related to any legitimate public purpose, especially enacted years after the emergency.	Law 80 addresses ongoing public and institutional interests, correcting financial disparities and protecting compliance with public health orders; it is rational and narrowly tailored.	Retroactive application is constitutionally permissible; Law 80 does not violate due process.
Did BU breach implied contracts mandating in-person instruction?	BU had impliedly promised in-person classes and services for tuition/fees paid.	No enforceable contract promising in-person instruction; impossibility/frustration doctrine applies due to legal prohibitions.	No actionable breach—any implied contract became impossible to perform per law.
Was summary judgment for BU proper?	Summary judgment was improper, especially exclusion of damages expert and denial of class certification.	Summary judgment was correct given impossibility and lack of actionable damages; plaintiffs’ claims legally untenable.	Affirmed summary judgment on alternate ground (Law 80).
Does Law 80 override plaintiffs’ contract/unjust enrichment claims?	Law 80 cannot constitutionally be applied to bar these claims or disrupt reliance interests.	Law 80 validly forecloses these claims because it is reasonable and narrowly tailored.	Law 80 bars the action; no constitutional violation found.

Key Cases Cited

Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717 (Supreme Court reaffirmed that retroactive economic legislation is constitutional if rationally related to a legitimate purpose)
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (Supreme Court outlined standards for evaluating retroactive legislative statutes)
U.S. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (established analytical framework for contract clause and retroactive economic legislation)
Home Building & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (upheld state law temporarily impairing contracts during emergency as a valid exercise of police power)
Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1 (burden is on challenger to prove legislature acted arbitrarily in economic regulation)