United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-1864 JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN INDIANA, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division. No. 3:21-cv-00144-TWP-MPB — Tanya Walton Pratt, Chief Judge. ____________________

ARGUED JULY 27, 2022 — DECIDED AUGUST 8, 2022 ____________________

Before HAMILTON, BRENNAN, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. A Title IX committee at the University of Southern Indiana found by a preponderance of evidence that one student, plaintiff-appellant John Doe, had sexually assaulted another student, Jane Doe. The committee imposed a three-semester suspension. After losing his appeal through the university’s procedures, John brought this lawsuit. He alleges that the university violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), by 2 No. 22-1864 discriminating against him on the basis of his sex. He sought a preliminary injunction to stop the university from imposing the suspension, but the district court denied his request. We affirm. To secure a preliminary injunction, John needs to show “that he is likely to succeed on the merits,” among other requirements. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). John has not shown he is likely to succeed on his claim of sex discrimination, so we agree with the district court that he is not entitled to a preliminary injunction. I. Factual and Procedural Background The record in this case includes documents from the uni- versity’s process for handling complaints of sexual assault, which included an outside investigator’s report with exhibits; John’s and Jane’s written responses to the investigative report; an audio recording and transcript from the formal hearing on Jane’s complaint; the appointed hearing committee’s written decision on her complaint; documents from the appeal pro- cess, including the decision affirming the committee; and var- ious correspondence from the process. The district court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on John’s motion for a pre- liminary injunction. Neither party sought such a hearing. Our account of the facts is drawn from the extensive record. John and Jane met as freshmen. The two quickly became “best friends” and spent time together almost daily. During the night of November 13 and early morning of November 14, 2020, John and Jane had been hanging out and drinking with friends. Jane acknowledges that she was very intoxicated that night and was repeatedly sick to her stomach. John maintains that he stayed sober throughout the night. At some point, John left, but around 2:00 am, Jane sent John a message inviting No. 22-1864 3 him to come back and join her and their friends in her room. He did. The Title IX complaint against John concerned what hap- pened after he returned. Jane complained that later that night, John got on her bed and the two started kissing. Jane acknowl- edged that they had kissed on prior occasions, and she did not tell him to stop kissing her that night. In a complaint filed three months later, however, she asserted that John went on to touch her breasts and digitally penetrate her without her consent. Later on November 14, Jane told her roommate about what she said was her sexual encounter with John the previ- ous night. She did not tell her roommate then that it was with- out her consent. After the night of November 13–14, 2020, Jane and John communicated regularly, at school and during the winter holidays. Jane did n