Nina Yoder v. University of Louisville, 526 F. App'x 537

Yoder, a former University of Louisville School of Nursing student, signed the Honor Code and Confidentiality Agreement as part of her upper-division studies and clinical rotations.
While in a childbearing clinical course, Yoder followed a patient and later posted a MySpace blog discussing confidential patient information and her observations of the birth process.
The SON and university officials concluded the blog violated patient confidentiality, the Honor Code, and professional standards, leading to Yoder's dismissal from the SON in early 2009.
Yoder petitioned for reinstatement; the Undergraduate Academic Affairs Committee denied her petition; she pursued federal § 1983 claims alleging First Amendment free speech and Fourteenth Amendment due process violations.
The district court granted summary judgment on various grounds; on remand, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s disposition, focusing on qualified immunity and the policies' validity.
Yoder ultimately completed her nursing degree; the appellate court held defendants entitled to qualified immunity and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the University and the named officials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yoder's off-campus blog violated First Amendment rights	Yoder contends the blog protected speech; dismissal violated her rights.	Defendants claim qualified immunity; the policies reasonably allowed sanction for confidentiality breach.	Rights not clearly established; qualified immunity applies.
Whether the SON policies are unconstitutionally overbroad or vague	Honor Code, Confidentiality Agreement, and Consent Form sweep too broadly or are vague.	Policies are narrowly tailored to protect patient confidentiality and professional standards.	Policies not overbroad or vague.
Whether Yoder received adequate due process in the academic dismissal	Dismissal for confidentiality breach required due process protections beyond what occurred.	Academic dismissals require minimal due process; the procedures were adequate and deliberate.	Procedural due process was adequate; qualified immunity applies.

Layshock ex rel. Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2011) (off-campus student speech not subject to school discipline when it lacks disruption)
Kowalski v. Berkeley Cnty. Schs., 652 F.3d 565 (4th Cir. 2011) (upholds regulation of online student speech causing disruption)
Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 2011) (non-clearly established that off-campus student speech cannot be disciplined)
Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727 (6th Cir. 2012) (school-speech standards may apply to university students)
Horowitz v. Bd. Curators Univ. of Mo., 435 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1978) (distinction between academic and disciplinary dismissal; due process differs)
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1975) (due process requirements for student disciplinary actions)
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (U.S. 1991) (waiver of confidentiality can bar First Amendment claims without contract)
United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 1099 v. S. Ohio Reg. Transit Auth., 163 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 1998) (vagueness inquiries in regulatory contexts)