Question

1–6. Procedural Due Process. Robert Brown applied for admission to the University of Kansas School of Law. Brown answered "no" to questions on the application asking if he had a criminal history and acknowledged that a false answer constituted "cause for... dismissal." In fact, Brown had criminal convictions for domestic battery and driving under the influence. He was accepted for admission to the school. When school officials discovered his history, however, he was notified of their intent to dismiss him and given an opportunity to respond in writing. He demanded a hearing. The officials refused to grant Brown a hearing and then expelled him. Did the school’s actions deny Brown due process? Miller, Roger LeRoy. Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today, The Essentials: Text and Summarized Cases (p. 29). Cengage Learning. Kindle Edition.

Answer 1

Answer:

Yes, the school's action denied Brown due process.

Explanation:

The school forgot the equal protection clause when taken their action. In the equal protection clause, an entity cannot prohibit any individual on the basis of gender or sex without due process. The school did not give Brown the hearing he demanded and this is a violation of the equal protection clause.

Answer 2

Answer: the due process clause is defined as "the provisions in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” (Miller, 2015). Inorder to acertain whether the schools’ actions denied Mr. Brown due process, we have to determine whether the ruling has denied Mr. Bbrown of liberty, life or property. In the court document for the case, it is stated that we will assume that Mr. Brown has liberty or property interests implicated by his dismissal from the law school. That being said, Mr Brown, was aware that providing false information on his admission application would be detrimental and could result in expulsion and, intentionally lied on his application.

The admission board of the school of law stated that had they known of the convictions beforehand, they would not have accepted Mr. Brown into their school. Thus, the school acted within their rights to expel him for providing false information on the admission application.