An accused student pseudonymously named Jacob Doe, represented by Nesenoff and Miltenberg, received a favorable ruling from Chief Judge Martin Reidinger (a G.W. Bush nominee) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina last week. I wanted to highlight it for several reasons. First, the motion was atypical as far as motions for preliminary injunctions by accused students go. Second, it is refreshing to see more favorable injunctive relief decisions; while 2020-2022 were not great years for them, 2023 has been more even-handed. Jacob Doe was a sophomore at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He was accused of misconduct by four female students. The complaint asserts that: “This was not an instance of four unconnected individuals who independently came forward to file reports with the University. Instead, this was a premeditated and coordinated campaign amongst the four women, spearheaded by UNC student Jane Roe 2, all of whom were part of a common friend group, regularly socialized with members of Plaintiff’s fraternity, and two of whom were best friends. Jane Roe 2 admitted that her actions in organizing the complaints against Plaintiff were intended to ostracize him from his friends, to have him excluded from his fraternity, and to have him lose his prestigious scholarship at UNC.” Doe was expelled and unable to reapply to another school in the UNC system. He also lost his scholarship, apartment, and friends. In February of this year, he sued in federal district court under the eight claims below. The first three are the “trinity” of claims commonly brought in accused student litigation.