‘Plausibly alleged the existence of a contract’ that Princeton violated. Several months after a federal judge tossed a punished student’s anti-male discrimination claims against Princeton, the court has put the Ivy League university on the defensive. U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti refused to dismiss due process, breach-of-contract and good-faith claims under New Jersey law on Wednesday, citing a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision from May on “fairness” in Title IX proceedings. It was a reversal of fortune for “John Doe,” who failed to convince Martinotti in February that his federal Title IX claims were plausible. The judge also ordered the accused student to show why his court even had jurisdiction over John’s state-law claims. Princeton withheld John’s degree for a semester, “functionally equivalent to a one-semester suspension,” and noted the sanction on his transcript, according to Martinotti’s February ruling. The university also denied his appeal. He claimed Princeton ignored his claims that “Alex Roe” had her way with him while he was incapacitated and generally favored her in the sexual misconduct proceeding against John. Princeton also withheld witness identities from him as well as Alex’s “initial statement” on their sexual encounter, and made “no real effort” to assess her credibility. John’s latest complaint, amended after his February loss, “sufficiently asserts the University failed to adhere to its own rules” and “plausibly alleged the existence of a contract” with Princeton that the university violated, according to the ruling. John’s lawyer Andrew Miltenberg told The College Fix in an email Wednesday that Martinotti’s opinion “seems to indicate” the judge is “considering our motion to reinstate our Title IX claims.” He was heartened by the court’s repeated mention of the 3rd Circuit’s University of the Sciences decision, which Miltenberg said is the basis for their reconsideration motion. His hunch was validated Thursday, when Martinotti reinstated John’s Title IX claims.