Student lawsuits against educational institutions have become increasingly common in both state and federal courts, and some students seek to proceed anonymously, often recognizing that public identification may carry consequences beyond the litigation itself. In most cases, litigation follows an extensive internal process in which a university investigates a student's complaint or conduct, expending resources to determine the facts and uphold its policies and institutional values.
While all litigation is costly, allowing a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym can substantially increase those costs. Beyond the need for heightened confidentiality measures, anonymity can hinder third-party discovery and reduce the likelihood that individuals with knowledge of the underlying events will come forward, thereby impairing the university's ability to fully and fairly defend itself.
Pseudonymous litigation imposes significant burdens on universities. Institutions must devote additional time and resources to protecting information that could reveal a student's identity, navigate more complex third-party discovery processes, and address the challenges that arise when potential witnesses or individuals with relevant information are less likely to come forward.
The practical consequences are significant. For example, when a university is required to produce emails, text messages, hearing records, disciplinary files, or witness statements, counsel and university personnel may need to conduct extensive reviews and redactions to ensure that no information could inadvertently reveal the plaintiff's identity. Similarly, third-party witnesses may struggle to understand the relevance of a subpoena or document request when the plaintiff is identified only as "John Doe" or "Jane Doe," making it more difficult to locate responsive information or recall pertinent events.
These burdens are particularly acute in cases involving campus events, student conduct proceedings, discrimination complaints, or academic disputes, where the universe of potential witnesses can be broad and where the identity of the complaining or affected student is often central to understanding the context of the allegations. In such circumstances, pseudonymity may impede the ordinary fact-finding process and place the university at a substantial disadvantage in investigating, defending, and ultimately resolving the claims.
Generally, courts have been hesitant to allow adult students to proceed under a pseudonym unless the case involves a matter of "utmost intimacy," such as allegations that the student committed or was the victim of sexual assault. Courts often weigh several nonexclusive factors, focusing on the age of the student, the nature of the underlying action, and whether the student is challenging a governmental regulation such that the student serves more as a figurehead than as an individual bringing a personal claim. Generally, after weighing those factors, students face a high bar to overcome the strong presumption of open judicial proceedings.
However, in 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit changed that calculus, at least for universities in the Northeast. In Doe v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 46 F.4th 61 (1st Cir. 2022), the court rejected weighing factors, leaving it to each district court to "identify the relevant circumstances in each case and to strike the appropriate balance between the public and private interests." Id. at 70. However, the court went on to identify four "paradigms" that demonstrate "general categories of exceptional cases in which party anonymity ordinarily will be warranted." Id. at 71. Those paradigms include broad categories of cases, including those in which a "prior proceeding" was "confidential by law." Id. Given the privacy protections afforded by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), this category necessarily includes many suits against higher education institutions in which the university utilized its own internal process.
The First Circuit did not intend, and its decision has not been interpreted, to permit any higher education student to sue a university under a pseudonym. Id. at 74. Moreover, the federal courts of appeals have largely rejected the First Circuit's "paradigm" approach in favor of weighing factors against the strong presumption of open judicial proceedings. Doe v. Univ. of S. Ind., 172 F.4th 511 (7th Cir. 2026); Doe v. Hill, 141 F.4th 291 (D.C. Cir. 2025); Doe v. Fla. Coast Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 2024 WL 4224254 (11th Cir. 2024). However, this area of law is far from settled, and our experience is that the First Circuit's decision has encouraged more student plaintiffs to attempt to litigate their cases under a pseudonym.
Baker Donelson's Education Group is actively monitoring developments in this area. If you have questions about how these developments may affect your institution, students, staff, or faculty, please contact Ryan Loofbourrow or the Baker Donelson attorney with whom you regularly work.