A former law student is seeking damages from University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill officials after being banned from campus and subjected to what the complaint describes as a confusing and inconsistent disciplinary process following criminal charges in Georgia that were later dismissed. The lawsuit was filed by James “Jamie” Marsicano on March 4, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina against several university administrators, including Desirée Rieckenberg (Dean of Students), Jessica Rehling (Assistant Dean of Students), Brian James (Chief of Police), Kevin Guskiewicz (Chancellor), Peter Hans (UNC System President), and the university itself.
According to the filing, Marsicano was enrolled at UNC School of Law when they were arrested on March 5, 2023, in Atlanta, Georgia, during a music festival. Marsicano was charged with Domestic Terrorism unrelated to any UNC-affiliated persons or property. After nearly three weeks in DeKalb County Jail without bond, Marsicano was released on March 23, 2023. The complaint states that a judge determined Marsicano did not pose risks outlined under Georgia law and intended for them to return to law school.
The charges against Marsicano were eventually dismissed: the Domestic Terrorism charge was dropped by DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Gregory Adams on August 14, 2025; a related Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act charge was dismissed by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Kevin Farmer on December 30, 2025. Throughout this period, public commentators reportedly criticized these charges as baseless and politically motivated.
Marsicano alleges that upon their arrest in Georgia, UNC’s Emergency Evaluation and Action Committee (EEAC) began disciplinary proceedings based solely on information about the out-of-state charges. On March 10, 2023, while Marsicano was still incarcerated and unable to access email or respond within the required timeframe, Defendant Rieckenberg issued an action letter banning them from campus pending further review. The letter stated that failure to request a hearing within seven days would result in withdrawal from classes but did not explain how the criminal charge related to UNC or why Marsicano’s presence would disrupt campus life.
After being released from jail on March 23, Marsicano learned about the ban for the first time through their school email and immediately requested a hearing as outlined in university policy. According to the complaint, Defendant Rehling informed Marsicano that requesting a hearing actually prevented them from returning to class until after its completion—a detail not specified in prior communications or policies—leaving Marsicano unable to attend classes even though professors supported their participation.
A virtual EEAC hearing took place on March 30 before a panel including Defendants Rieckenberg and James. The complaint asserts that procedures for this hearing were only explained at its conclusion rather than beforehand. Days later, Chancellor Guskiewicz sent a letter extending the campus ban indefinitely—a decision which contradicted EEAC policy stating such matters should be decided by committee with appeals going to the chancellor only afterward.
Marsicano attempted to appeal but encountered additional procedural confusion regarding who would hear it; ultimately UNC System President Peter Hans affirmed Guskiewicz’s decision without providing explanations regarding evidence or findings. The complaint alleges there was no further avenue for administrative appeal despite repeated inquiries.
As described in court documents, these actions forced Marsicano into remote learning conditions for much of their legal education—completing classes via recordings at home rather than attending live sessions or using campus resources—and prevented participation in extracurricular activities or graduation ceremonies with classmates. For their third year of law school, they attended classes at Duke University School of Law as an alternative provided by UNC.
The lawsuit brings multiple claims including violation of procedural and substantive due process under federal law (42 U.S.C. §1983), violation of state constitutional rights under Article I §19 of the North Carolina Constitution, breach of contract based on alleged failures to follow university policies outlined in handbooks and agreements with students, common law due process violations under North Carolina law, and negligence arising from alleged failures by university administrators during disciplinary proceedings.
Marsicano seeks compensatory damages for educational disruption and emotional distress; consequential damages; nominal damages; punitive damages against individual defendants; attorney’s fees; costs; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. A jury trial is demanded for all issues so triable.
Attorneys representing James “Jamie” Marsicano are Xavier T. de Janon (De Janon PLLC), Ezra Ritchin (Ritchin Law PLLC), and Akeeb Dami Animashaun. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00207.
Source: 126cv00207_Marsicano_v_Rieckenberg_Complaint_Middle_District_North_Carolina.pdf
