Removed from campus before anything was decided.
Emergency removal is the most consequential thing that can happen to a respondent before any determination, and it is the least challenged. It happens quickly, it is presented as a safety measure rather than a sanction, and its practical effects - lost credits, a vacated dorm room, a suspended clinical placement, a terminated visa record - are indistinguishable from punishment.
The regulatory standard.
The 2020 rule permits a school to remove a respondent from an education programme or activity on an emergency basis only where it undertakes an individualised safety and risk analysis, determines that an immediate threat to the physical health or safety of any individual arising from the allegations justifies removal, and provides the respondent with notice and an opportunity to challenge the decision immediately following the removal.
Where removals fail the standard.
Four recurring problems. Institutions sometimes apply a blanket practice to all allegations of a given category, which is by definition not individualised. Institutions frequently rely on concerns that are not physical health or safety - campus climate, community reaction, the complainant’s discomfort at shared spaces - which the regulation does not authorise. Some never offer the challenge opportunity at all. And many impose removal with no stated duration or review date, which converts an emergency measure into an unadjudicated suspension.
How the challenge is made.
In writing, promptly, and specifically. Request the individualised analysis itself, which in practice frequently has not been documented. Identify precisely what physical threat is asserted and what evidence supports it. Propose less restrictive alternatives - a no-contact directive, a schedule adjustment, a housing relocation - because the availability of alternatives undercuts the necessity of removal. Quantify the concrete harm, since a decision-maker weighing an abstract risk against unspecified inconvenience will side with the risk, and a decision-maker told about a lost semester of a nursing degree or a terminated SEVIS record is weighing something real.
Employees, and administrative leave.
For employee respondents the analysis differs: the rule permits placing an employee on administrative leave during the pendency of the process without the emergency-removal findings. Faculty and staff should read the regulation together with the faculty handbook and any collective bargaining agreement, which may supply procedural rights the regulation does not.
Why the challenge matters even when it fails.
Most challenges do not result in reinstatement. They still matter. The exchange creates a documented record of what the institution asserted, what analysis it had performed, and what alternatives it declined - and where a removal was imposed on grounds the rule does not authorise, that record becomes an appeal ground and, at a public institution, part of a due process claim. It is also frequently the first point at which an institution realises the respondent has counsel who is reading the regulation.
Why you should call us.
If you are scrolling through search results trying to find someone to defend you, your search is over. You have found Spodek Law Group P.C. - and we are not your average defense firm. We know a thing or two about defending the accused in campus cases - and in the criminal courts that run alongside them. Over 50 years of combined experience, some of the toughest cases in the country, and we have come out on top. We have seen it all, and we empathise with you. We understand how frightening this is, and we have a legal team who can fight and win.
Unlike other attorneys who care about their reputation with the administrators and the prosecutors, our only goal is getting you the best outcome. We owe loyalty to only you. Our lawyers listen to you, your fears, and your goals. We care about your story, and that is where the work begins - by understanding and listening to you.
On billing, we are transparent about our fees, and there are no surprises. Choosing a lawyer is a big deal and cost is a real issue, so we are committed to being your champion irrespective of your ability to pay. Our firm has a simple belief: lawyers should only take on clients whom they can truly help. Many firms are mills that take every case through the door. We do not.
Working with us starts with a risk-free consultation, in person or over the phone. You can ask us anything, for as long as it takes, and we encourage you to ask the tough questions. We are available 24/7, we practise coast to coast, and every client has direct access to a partner. Call 212 300 5196 - an attorney answers.
