The University of Michigan may not find a student guilty of sexual misconduct in a he-said-she-said situation without giving the accused, or their representative, the opportunity to directly question the victim, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, Sept. 7.

While the ruling applies specifically to a case out of UM, the decision could have implications at university campuses across Michigan and beyond.

A growing number of universities, including UM and Michigan State University, in an effort to shield sexual assault victims from their attackers and to encourage victims to speak up, have established policies that deprive the accused, usually young men, of their constitutional right to cross-examine, argues Bloomfield Hills-based attorney Deborah L. Gordon.

Gordon is representing an anonymous former UM student, named only as John Doe in court filings, who was kicked out the university based on allegations that he had non-consensual sex with a woman, also a student, while she was drunk during a fraternity party on Jan. 16, 2016.

The woman filed a sexual misconduct complaint with the university. The allegations were initially ruled to be unfounded, but the woman appealed and the decision was reversed.

The male student, who at the time held a 3.95 GPA and was 13.5 credit hours from earning his degree, was forced to withdraw from UM on June 27, 2016, according to the original complaint.

In September of 2016, the student filed a federal lawsuit asking UM to grant him his degree. He argued that the sexual misconduct finding was erroneous, partially based on the fact that he was never able to defend himself before the appellate body or question the credibility of his accuser's claims.

John Doe, according to the appeals court ruling, claimed he and the female student were kissing, and decided to go up to his bedroom to have sex. Afterwards, he left for an extended period of time and returned to find the woman distraught, he believed because he left her alone in the bed shortly after their sexual encounter.

The woman describes the encounter very differently, claiming she said "no sex" before she "flopped" onto the male student's bed.

"Without asking, (the man) undressed her and had intercourse with her while she 'laid there in a hazy state of black out,'" the appellate court ruling says. "And at some point, she passed out and woke up to (the man) having oral sex with her."

In January 2015, U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson ruled in favor of the University of Michigan and it's appellate board, UM Law School Assistant Dean David H. Baum, former professor Susan Pritzel, Office Of Student Conflict Assistant Director Nadia Bazzy and Tabitha Bentley. The case was dismissed.

But based on the successful appeal, the case will now return to the U.S. District Court for a possible jury trial to determine whether the male student should be granted his degree, as well as compensation for attorney fees.

Gordon says she's representing another plaintiff in a similar case filed against UM that is awaiting an appeals court decision. Based on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, she fully expects the court to again rule against UM.

The university has "wasted an incredible amount of taxpayers' dollars and energy" creating and attempting to uphold the unconstitutional policy, Gordon said.

MLive has sought comment and was awaiting a response from attorney David Debruin, who is defending the university, its policy and employees.

Gordon said UM policy allows "a full hearing and live cross-examination to a student accused of any wrongdoing at the university ... except sexual misconduct."

It was unclear if UM intends to adjust its sexual misconduct investigation policy or appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeals also ruled on a second aspect of the original complaint. The student claimed gender discrimination, alleging that the U.S. Department of Education, student groups and the general public are encouraging universities to be overzealous in their investigations of men accused of sexual misconduct.

The appeals court ruled there is a basis for this claim to be argued and decided upon by the lower court.

Sixth Circuit Court judges Amul R. Thapar and Julia S. Gibbons issued the court's majority decision. Judge Ronald L. Gilman dissented in part, writing that the decision to grant the accused or the representative a chance to cross-examine their accuser is a "bridge too far," as precedent has already determined that due process may be afforded at the university level without the benefit of an attorney.

Gilman also wrote that there was "no basis to reasonably infer" gender discrimination played a role in UM's ruling against the male student.

Read each of the judges' opinions below: