United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2925 JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 18-cv-7335 — Steven C. Seeger, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED APRIL 20, 2023 — DECIDED MAY 3, 2024 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Loyola University Chicago ex- pelled John Doe after concluding that he had engaged in sex- ual activity with Jane Roe, a fellow student, without her properly obtained consent. Contending that the University discriminates against men, Doe sued under Title IX of the Ed- ucation Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–88, plus Illinois contract law. The district court granted summary 2 No. 22-2925 judgment to Loyola. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175968 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2022). The parties’ appellate briefs did not explain Doe’s use of a pseudonym, so we directed them to file post-argument mem- oranda on that subject. The memoranda mention facts that lead us to ask whether the case is moot. We now remand to the district court to address both mootness and anonymity. The memoranda told us that Doe was admi_ed to another university in 2017, soon after his expulsion from Loyola, and graduated with honors in 2018. The normal remedy in cases of this kind—an injunction directing the college to readmit the expelled student—is therefore unavailable. (Doe does not contend that he wants to a_end Loyola for post-graduate ed- ucation.) As for damages: Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002), holds that punitive damages are unavailable in private litigation under laws based on the Spending Clause. Title IX is such a law; it applies only to institutions that accept federal funds. 20 U.S.C. §1681(a). Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212 (2022), adds that damages for emotional distress also are unavailable under Spending-Clause statutes. That leaves standard compensatory damages. See Hayden v. Greensburg Community School Corp., 743 F.3d 569, 583 (7th Cir. 2014). But what could they be in a case such as this? Doe’s brief does not explain what remedy he seeks, and the district judge did not mention this subject. Compensatory damages may depend on the resolution of factual disputes about what happened to Doe following his expulsion, disputes best re- solved by a district judge. We do not say that Doe must win on damages to have a live claim, see Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946), but, unless compensatory damages are an option, this suit is not justiciable. That makes a remand necessary. No. 22-2925 3

Anonymity is the other issue requiring a_ention on re- mand. District Judge Feinerman, who handled this case until his resignation, authorized Doe to proceed under a pseudo- nym. He gave a brief oral explanation: Other courts in similar cases involving these kinds of hearings at colleges have allowed the plaintiffs to proceed as Does, and I don’t see any reason to chart a different path in this case. It would defeat the purpose of the suit if the plaintiff were named because this is all about the plaintiff preserving his reputation and his future employment prospects. And if the plaintiff were named, it would be preLy easy to put two and two together and figure out who the person whom Loyola deemed to be the victim was. This comes to three reasons: (1) anonymity is the norm in Title IX litigation; (2) plaintiff wants to keep