National University of Health Sciences: Student Discipline, Dismissal & Federal Court

How do student discipline and dismissal cases work at NUHS?

The National University of Health Sciences is a private, nonprofit health-sciences university in Lombard, in DuPage County, accredited by the Higher Learning Commission; its chiropractic program is accredited by the Council on Chiropractic Education, its naturopathic program by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, and its acupuncture programs by the Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine. The same Code of Student Conduct also governs its Florida site, but this page is about Lombard. The rule most likely to catch a struggling NUHS student is a clock measured in hours: after an F, a U or a probation, a student whose mitigating circumstances were left out of the dean’s remediation plan has 48 hours after completing that plan to file a written appeal. And on the conduct side, NUHS’s own documents give three different answers to whether your advisor may be a lawyer.

The National University of Health Sciences is a private institution. There is no state action, so there is no constitutional due process claim, and arguing one wastes an appeal. The theory is contract: Illinois holds that a college and its students have a contractual relationship whose terms come from the catalog and the handbook — Raethz v. Aurora University, 346 Ill. App. 3d 728 (2004), restated by the Fourth District in Urso v. Bradley University, 2023 IL App (4th) 230165 — while adding that the relationship “is unique and cannot be strictly categorized or characterized in purely contractual terms.”

The limit is the standard of review, and it decides most of these cases before anyone reaches the facts. A student has a remedy for an adverse academic decision only if it was made arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith. Frederick v. Northwestern University Dental School, 247 Ill. App. 3d 464 (1993), puts it bluntly — courts have been loath to review, much less overturn, academic dismissals — and Bosch v. NorthShore University Health System, 2019 IL App (1st) 190070, holds that a school which departs somewhat from its handbook still wins unless the departure was material. The federal courts in Chicago apply the same test: in Doe v. Columbia College Chicago, 933 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2019), the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a student’s contract claim where the college had investigated and reasoned its way to a decision, and in Gash v. Rosalind Franklin University, 117 F.4th 957 (7th Cir. 2024), it held that calling a process arbitrary or predetermined, without specific facts, is not enough. What survives is specific: in Liu v. Northwestern University, 78 F. Supp. 3d 839 (N.D. Ill. 2015), a former law student’s claim went forward where the school imposed what amounted to an integrity charge while denying her the handbook procedure for contesting one. Federal law does not care that the school is private: Title IX, Title VI and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act apply because it takes federal funds, and the ADA applies to it as a place of public accommodation.

A federal claim arising at the National University of Health Sciences is filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — DuPage County sits in its Eastern Division under 28 U.S.C. § 93(a), and the statute fixes the places of holding court for that division at Chicago and Wheaton. I am a member of the general bar of that court, admitted on my Florida license under its Local Rule 83.10, which opens the general bar to an attorney in good standing before the highest court of any state. That means a Title IX, Section 504 or ADA complaint for a National University of Health Sciences student is one I file and litigate under my own name, with no pro hac vice motion. The Northern District abrogated its local-counsel designation rule in July 2023, so a member of its bar with no office in the district no longer has to designate local counsel. One limit, stated plainly: the court keeps a separate trial bar, and under Local Rule 83.12 a general-bar member who is not on it — that is me — appears alone in everything except testimonial proceedings, meaning evidentiary hearings and trial, where a trial-bar member must sit as advisor unless the judge grants the rule’s narrow waiver.

Academic standing, remediation plans and the 48-hour window

The governing document is the policy titled Academic Progress, ASGR, Probation, Suspension, Expulsion, last revised September 2, 2025. Good standing requires a cumulative average of 2.0 and, in the professional programs, a passing grade in Clinic Internship. An F or U brings a notice of academic deficiency; a trimester average below 2.0 brings an academic warning; a cumulative average below 2.0 or a failed Clinic Internship brings academic probation, one trimester at a time. Three trimesters of failing to meet good standing in a professional program “shall result in suspension or expulsion,” and a cumulative average below 1.00, a 0.50 after the first term, or failing the same course three times — Clinic Internship courses count as the same course — can do the same.

Every F, U or probation means a meeting with the dean before the add/drop date of the next trimester and a remediation plan the Committee on Academic Standards, Grades and Records must approve; until the plan is accepted you are not registered. If mitigating circumstances were left out, you may file a written appeal to that committee “within 48 hours after completing the remediation plan with the appropriate dean,” explaining the deficiencies and offering “a well-reasoned amendment” with realistic strategies. The committee — nine faculty members chosen by the President — decides whether the appeal has merit, but it only recommends: “The dean has the authority to accept or reject ASGR’s recommendations,” and the dean renders the final decision. That sits awkwardly with the same policy’s earlier statement that decisions on remediation, suspension and expulsion “may be appealed by the student to the Committee.”

The last step is the Vice President for Academic Services, in writing “within five (5) business days of the dean’s final decision,” on three limited grounds: procedural safeguards were not applied, someone had a conflict of interest or bias, or new issues or facts surfaced that you did not know about earlier. “There is no appeal beyond the Vice President for Academic Services.” Suspension is “not usually exceeding three trimesters,” and reinstatement requires evidence of further academic development — typically a B or better in a student success study course. Expulsion is permanent. The readmission window is tight: separated students must ask the registrar within one year, and “After one calendar year, academically dismissed students are not eligible for readmission.” For federal aid, College of Professional Studies students on a second probation are warned that a third will cost their eligibility.

Conduct hearings: who decides, and on what standard

The Code of Student Conduct for 2026–2028 puts the Dean of Students in charge. The Dean investigates, decides whether the complaint has enough support to proceed, and chooses the format: an informal hearing before one hearing official, or a formal hearing before the Committee on University Discipline. Both use the same standard — a “preponderance of the evidence” or “more likely than not” (greater than 50%) weighing — the same sanctions and the same appeal, and at the first hearing the burden is on the University. The informal format is meant for students who accept responsibility, but the Dean may use it even when you dispute the charges.

A formal hearing is set “not less than five nor more than 15 business days after the student has been notified,” is recorded, and you may ask the Dean of Students to inspect the recording. Evidence not identified before the hearing may be excluded. Your prior disciplinary history goes to the chair only after a finding and before sanctions. The Code lists four sanctioning criteria, and two of them matter in practice: “the sanctioning measures applied in the past to other students for similar misconduct,” and “the student’s attitude, behavior and statements throughout the conduct process.” Censure can appear on the transcript for up to one year, probation for two, suspension for four; expulsion is recorded and may be removed after five years for good cause. The Code’s catch-all charge, “Conduct Unbecoming a Future Healthcare Professional,” requires behavior “more serious than slight, and of a material and pronounced character.”

Appeals go to the Appellate Body, “usually the Vice President for Administrative Services,” in writing within five (5) business days of the decision. The review is on the file, and the grounds are fairness and adherence to procedure, whether the facts met the more-likely-than-not standard, bias, the fit of the sanction, and new evidence. The Code introduces them as “one of the four reasons listed below” and then lists five. The protection that matters: “review of the case may not result in more severe sanction(s),” and sanctions may be deferred while the appeal is pending. The Dean of Students may impose an interim suspension, with a prompt chance to appear before the Dean on the reliability of the information and whether you pose a substantial and immediate threat. Disciplinary cases normally proceed while criminal charges are pending.

Clinic internship and academic integrity

Interns are governed by the NUHS Intern Manual as well as the Code. Supervising clinicians may apply automatic penalties for minor infractions listed in the Manual; disputing a penalty, failing to complete one, or an infraction serious enough to risk suspension or expulsion goes to the Dean of Clinics, who decides with the Dean of Students whether a formal or informal hearing fits. Clinic Internship is graded, and failing it is a probation event on its own.

The Academic Integrity & Dishonesty policy, revised February 24, 2026, sends violations through the Code’s hearing procedures and sets strict rules for video-proctored online exams: a 360° room scan, one monitor, nothing on your wrist, and “no bathroom breaks, off-camera stretching or extra time.” Proctors who suspect cheating are told to let the student finish the exam and note who sat nearby. The policy also preserves stricter program standards — the College of Professional Studies’ “Professional Performance Standards” and the College of Allied Health Sciences’ “Standards of Conduct and Performance.”

Sexual misconduct, and the lawyer question

For sexual misconduct, the federal rule is the 2020 Title IX regulation: the 2024 rule was vacated nationwide on January 9, 2025, in Tennessee v. Cardona, and on September 29, 2026 the Department of Education formally repealed it and restored the pre-2024 text (91 Fed. Reg. 61,308). NUHS’s Title IX and Sex Discrimination Policy uses the preponderance standard, a hearing before a committee, and an appeal to the Title IX Coordinator within five business days that “may not result in more severe sanction(s).” Its hearing model is its own: “Only the chair and the committee may question the individual parties or witnesses,” and parties or advisors may ask the chair to pose further questions. Sexual misconduct that falls below the federal threshold “under Final Regulations of 2020” goes through the Code of Student Conduct instead.

That split produces three different answers on lawyers. In an informal Code hearing, “An advisor or an attorney shall not assist the accused student.” In a formal Code hearing, “The advisor may be an attorney,” but advisors may not speak or participate beyond submitting cross-examination questions before the hearing for the chair’s approval. Under the Title IX policy, the advisor “may not be a legal counselor,” while separately “Legal counsel may be present at the hearing,” may advise privately and “may not examine witnesses or otherwise directly participate.” Which rule governs depends on how NUHS classifies your case — Title IX or Code, formal or informal — which is why the question belongs in writing, early. See Title IX and sexual misconduct.

What a student defense lawyer can do here

Most of the value is early and quiet. It is reading NUHS’s policy against what the University actually did and finding the gap; writing the response or the appeal so it argues the grounds the policy recognizes rather than the ones that feel most unfair; preserving the federal issues — Title IX, Section 504 and the ADA, FERPA — so they are in the record if the case ever leaves campus; and identifying comparators, because a sanction far outside what similar cases drew is one of the few arguments that reliably moves a decision-maker.

At NUHS that last point is written into the Code, which makes past sanctions for similar misconduct a sanctioning criterion — so ask for them and use them. The academic move is speed: a 48-hour appeal of a remediation plan has to arrive with the “well-reasoned amendment” the policy asks for, not a promise to send one later. And because the attorney rules conflict, get the University’s answer in writing before the hearing rather than at the door.

What a lawyer cannot do is turn a campus hearing into a trial. The rules of evidence do not apply, there is no discovery, and the school decides its own case at first instance. That is exactly why the written record built during the campus process is the whole ballgame: by the time a court looks at it, the record is closed.

The one Illinois statute that gives you procedure

Illinois has no general statute setting notice periods, hearing formats, standards of proof or appeal rights for college students. The Illinois School Code, 105 ILCS 5, has a detailed suspension and expulsion scheme, and it applies to elementary and secondary schools, not here. The exception is the Preventing Sexual Violence in Higher Education Act, 110 ILCS 155, and it is a real one. It reaches every higher education institution in the state — public universities, community colleges, and private not-for-profit and for-profit institutions alike — and it requires timely written notice of the allegations to all parties, an investigation that is adequate, reliable and impartial, written notice of the outcome, and appeal rights. It requires the school to make confidential advisors available, trained to a statutory standard and kept separate from the people deciding the case. Both parties are entitled to an advisor of their choice, and that advisor may be an attorney — although the institution may limit how far an attorney-advisor participates in a hearing, which is why NUHS’s own rules on that — set out above, and not consistent with one another — still govern what your lawyer may do in the room. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, applied the same way to both sides.

What to do first

1. If you have just been given a remediation plan you disagree with, start writing today. The window is 48 hours after completing the plan with the dean, and the appeal must include your proposed amendment.
2. Get every decision in writing and diary the next deadline — five business days to the Vice President for Academic Services after the dean’s final decision, five business days for a conduct or Title IX appeal.
3. Ask the Dean of Students, in writing, which format applies — informal, formal or Title IX — and what role your advisor or lawyer may play under it.
4. Request the record. Ask for the investigative findings before the hearing and the recording afterwards, and save the versions of the Code and the academic policy in force when the events happened.
5. Calendar the readmission deadline if you are academically separated: one year, and the record of “further academic development” the dean will want. See readmission after dismissal, and the Illinois student defense hub for how the federal courts fit in.

One honest caveat about geography. Illinois has three federal districts. I am admitted to two of them, the Northern and the Southern. A federal claim arising at a school in Springfield, Peoria, Champaign-Urbana or the Quad Cities falls in the Central District; I am not a member of that bar, and those matters I handle with local counsel in that district or by pro hac vice admission. Appeals from the Northern District go to the Seventh Circuit, which keeps its own bar; my appellate admission is in the Eleventh. I say so before a retainer rather than after.

Where I am licensed. I am licensed to practice law in Florida. I am admitted to the bars of the U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Middle and Northern Districts of Florida, the District of Colorado, the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, the District of Nebraska, the District of New Mexico, and the Western District of Wisconsin, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Federal court admission is not a license to practice the law of the state in which the court sits. I am not licensed in Illinois and do not advise on Illinois state law or appear in Illinois state court.

The federal money on the line at NUHS

National University of Health Sciences students and families took on $21.9 million in federal Direct Loans in the 2025–26 award year — with 324 graduate and professional students also borrowing through Grad PLUS.

Every dollar of it rides on academic standing. A dismissal, a failed Satisfactory Academic Progress evaluation, or a mid-term withdrawal sets off federal rules that decide whether aid continues, whether money already disbursed has to go back, and — under the borrowing caps in effect since July 1, 2026 — whether a student who leaves can still finance a return. The academic fight and the financial aid fight are the same fight, and the windows are short. How those rules work: SAP appeals and academic dismissal.

On the Department’s financial responsibility test, National University of Health Sciences’s most recent published composite score is 2.2 (fiscal year 2022–23) — a passing score on the –1.0-to-3.0 scale, where 1.5 and above passes. How to read that number: the federal warning signs guide.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Data Center, Direct Loan volume by school, award year 2025–26 (cumulative through June 30, 2026). Institution-wide federal Direct Loan totals.

Other schools in the Northern District of Illinois

Every school writes its own dismissal, appeal and conduct rules, and the deadlines are rarely the same from one campus to the next. These pages set out the procedure at other schools in the Northern District of Illinois:

• North Central College
• North Park University
• Northeastern Illinois University
• Northern Baptist Theological Seminary
• Northern Illinois University
• Northwestern University

Common questions about NUHS student cases

How long do I have to appeal at NUHS?

It depends on the track. A remediation plan can be appealed to the Committee on Academic Standards, Grades and Records within 48 hours after you complete it with the dean. The dean’s final academic decision can be appealed to the Vice President for Academic Services within five business days. Conduct decisions go to the Appellate Body, and Title IX outcomes to the Title IX Coordinator, each within five business days.

Can I bring a lawyer to my NUHS hearing?

Not to an informal Code hearing: “An advisor or an attorney shall not assist the accused student.” In a formal Code hearing your advisor may be an attorney but may only submit pre-approved cross-examination questions. Under the Title IX policy the advisor “may not be a legal counselor,” though legal counsel may attend and advise you privately without examining witnesses. Ask the Dean of Students in writing which rule applies to your case.

What standard of proof does NUHS use?

The Code uses a “preponderance of the evidence” or “more likely than not” (greater than 50%) weighing, in both informal and formal hearings, and the burden at the first hearing is on the University; on appeal the student must show a recognized ground. The Title IX policy also uses preponderance of the evidence. The academic policy sets standing thresholds rather than a standard of proof.

Can I be readmitted to NUHS after an academic dismissal?

Only if you move quickly. Students separated for academic reasons must direct a readmission request to the registrar within one year of leaving, and after one calendar year academically dismissed students are not eligible. A suspended student needs evidence of further academic development, typically a B or better in a student success study course. Expelled students cannot return, and any readmission conditions are set by the dean with the committee and the Admissions Committee.

Can an appeal make my NUHS sanction worse?

Not on a conduct or Title IX appeal. Both the Code of Student Conduct and the Title IX policy say review “may not result in more severe sanction(s),” and sanctions may be deferred while the appeal is pending unless your presence is considered a substantial threat. On the academic side, the Vice President for Academic Services may uphold the dean, remand, or review a specific part of the plan.