Ninth Circuit: Boermeester Seeks to Revive USC Title IX Appeal

• Matthew Boermeester, a former USC football player, is appealing the dismissal of his gender bias lawsuit against the university to the Ninth Circuit.
• Boermeester was expelled after a USC Title IX investigation into a 2017 incident, despite the alleged victim later publicly stating she was not harmed.
• A federal judge dismissed his lawsuit, citing claim preclusion because he had already challenged his expulsion unsuccessfully in California state courts, including the state Supreme Court.
• His attorney argues the state court review focused only on procedural fairness, not the merits of a Title IX gender discrimination claim.
• The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments today, October 29, 2026, on whether the state court proceedings prevent Boermeester from pursuing his federal Title IX gender bias allegations.

This case underscores the complex interplay between state court administrative review and subsequent federal civil rights claims, particularly regarding allegations of gender bias and due process in university Title IX investigations.

Matthew Boermeester, a former kicker for the University of Southern California (USC) football team, is seeking to revive his gender bias lawsuit against the university in the Ninth Circuit. Boermeester was expelled from USC, two classes shy of graduation, following a Title IX investigation into a January 2017 incident involving a student he had been dating. He contends that USC's investigation was tainted by "archaic stereotypes and innate biases" that unfairly target male athletes as aggressive and hypermasculine.

The incident in question occurred late at night in an alley behind the woman's off-campus apartment. Witnesses reported seeing Boermeester grab the woman by the throat and repeatedly push her against a concrete wall, causing her head to strike the wall. A nearby video camera captured the interaction, though the footage quality was poor. The father of one of the witnesses subsequently reported the event to USC's Title IX office. Initially, the woman informed a university investigator that Boermeester had been violent on prior occasions and requested an emergency order. However, she later expressed to the investigator that she felt "freaked out" and feared repercussions from the football team if they discovered her communication with the Title IX office. Despite the woman later publicly stating on social media that nothing untoward had occurred and that USC had made her a victim against her will, the university concluded that Boermeester had violated its policy against intimate partner violence, leading to his expulsion. This occurred after the investigation was leaked to the media, and the woman identified herself as the purported victim.

Boermeester's legal battle began in state court, challenging USC's administrative procedures. This state court case, a California writ of administrative mandate proceeding, ultimately reached the California Supreme Court. That court determined that judicial bodies should not dictate how universities conduct their Title IX investigations and rejected Boermeester's assertion that he had been denied a fair hearing prior to his expulsion. While his state court appeal was ongoing, Boermeester initiated a civil rights lawsuit in federal court in 2019. This federal case was subsequently put on hold, awaiting the California Supreme Court's final decision, which was issued in 2023.

Following the state court's final ruling, a federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed Boermeester's federal complaint with prejudice. The dismissal was based on the principle of claim preclusion, reasoning that he had already litigated the underlying issues in the unsuccessful state court proceeding. The central question before the Ninth Circuit panel, which included U.S. Circuit Judges Ryan Nelson and Holly Thomas, revolved around whether Boermeester should have, or could have, included a Title IX gender discrimination claim within his state court petition, and whether his state court challenge to USC's administrative process now bars him from pursuing this claim in federal court.

Mark Hathaway, Boermeester's attorney, argued before the Ninth Circuit that the state court proceeding, governed by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, focused on a much narrower scope. He contended that the state court's review merely assessed whether USC had met the "low bar" of providing notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard, rather than evaluating the merits of a gender discrimination claim. Hathaway asserted that universities could satisfy these procedural requirements under Section 1094.5 while still engaging in discriminatory practices. "Schools can meet the requirements under 1094.5 and still discriminate," Hathaway stated, emphasizing, "That's what happened here." This argument highlights a critical distinction between procedural due process challenges in state administrative review and substantive claims of gender bias under Title IX in federal court.

The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on this Boermeester Ninth Circuit Title IX appeal today, October 29, 2026. The outcome will clarify whether an expelled student's federal lawsuit alleging gender bias, such as Matthew Boermeester's, can proceed after an unsuccessful state court challenge to the university's administrative process. This case underscores the complex interplay between state court administrative review and subsequent federal civil rights claims, particularly regarding allegations of gender bias and due process in university Title IX investigations.

This case highlights the complex interplay between state court administrative review and subsequent federal civil rights claims in university Title IX disputes. Lawyers advising universities or students must carefully consider the scope of issues litigated in state proceedings to avoid claim preclusion when pursuing federal Title IX gender discrimination allegations.

Source: Original reporting via CN.