Most families first hear the phrase “Title IX investigation” in the same conversation where they learn a university police officer has already been assigned to the case. A campus disciplinary proceeding and a criminal investigation can open in the same week, run on completely separate timelines, and each carry consequences the other process does nothing to limit. That overlap is what catches students and parents off guard, and it’s where the stakes escalate fast.
We’ve been representing students and families in Eastern Iowa since 1992, handling criminal defense cases in Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, and Davenport. What we see consistently is that the decisions a student makes in the first days after receiving a Title IX notice (before a hearing is scheduled and before any criminal charges are filed) shape both proceedings in ways that are very difficult to undo.
How a Title IX Complaint Reaches a University of Iowa Student
The governing federal framework is the 2020 Title IX regulations under 34 CFR Part 106. A federal court vacated the 2024 version of those rules nationwide on January 9, 2025, so any resource describing the 2024 regulations as current law is out of date. The 2020 framework is what applies now.
At the University of Iowa, complaints go through the Title IX Coordinator housed within the Office of Civil Rights Compliance. That office was restructured from the university’s former Office of Institutional Equity in April 2024, so its current name and structure differ from what many older articles describe. The Title IX Coordinator receives complaints, evaluates which resolution process applies, and coordinates with the parties from that point forward.
One detail many students don’t anticipate is how a complaint gets there in the first place. The university designates certain faculty and staff as Academic or Administrative Officers, and those individuals are mandated reporters, required to report suspected sexual harassment or misconduct to the Title IX Coordinator within two business days of learning about it. A student who confides in an advisor, a resident assistant, or a professor about something that happened may have unknowingly triggered a formal report before deciding whether to file one themselves.
Supportive Measures & Emergency Removal Before Any Finding
Once a complaint is received, the Title IX Coordinator has authority to impose supportive measures, including no-contact directives, removal from a residence hall, or restrictions on building access. These measures can go into effect before anyone has been found responsible for anything. The university is required to use the least restrictive option available, but “least restrictive” can still mean a student is removed from campus housing or barred from attending certain classes while the process plays out.
Emergency removal decisions don’t carry an appeal process, though the responding student does receive a written summary of the basis for the removal and may bring an advisor to a meeting with the Title IX Coordinator before it takes effect. That meeting matters. What a student says there (and who they bring) can affect how the rest of the process unfolds.
Violating a no-contact directive is treated as a separate conduct matter and can generate independent discipline on top of whatever comes from the underlying complaint. Even a brief accidental contact needs to be documented and addressed carefully.
Process A & Process B: Two Different Paths to a Decision
The University of Iowa uses two distinct resolution tracks, and which one applies determines how much process a student gets.
Process A
Process A applies when the alleged conduct meets the Title IX definition of sexual harassment or, if the allegations are found to be true, would likely result in suspension or expulsion. This track involves a live hearing before a Hearing Adjudicator who decides responsibility using the preponderance of the evidence standard, meaning the conduct is found more likely than not to have occurred, a lower bar than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal court. Both parties can present evidence and question witnesses through their advisors at the hearing.
Process B
Process B applies when the alleged conduct doesn’t meet the Title IX sexual harassment definition and wouldn’t result in suspension or expulsion. There’s no live hearing. An investigator reviews the evidence and issues a written determination. The respondent has fewer procedural protections under this track, and the outcome still becomes part of the student’s conduct record.
The university describes its Student Accountability Procedure as an educational process and states explicitly that it’s not a substitute for the civil or criminal court system. That framing matters: the campus process moves forward regardless of whether any criminal charges are filed or how a criminal case resolves.
Why a Campus Case & a Criminal Case Run on Separate Tracks
Sexual assault allegations at or near the University of Iowa campus often involve the university’s own Police Department, which can open a criminal investigation that runs entirely independently of the Title IX proceeding. A student navigating both at the same time is making decisions in one forum that can affect the other, often without realizing it.
One of the most important distinctions is confidentiality. The university provides students access to a non-lawyer Title IX advisor during the campus process. That advisor isn’t bound by attorney-client privilege, so information a student shares in that context isn’t protected the way communications with defense counsel are. A student who gives a detailed account to a university-provided advisor has no protection against that information being used elsewhere.
The long-term consequences of expulsion extend further than most students realize. Under the University of Iowa’s 2025-26 Student Accountability Procedure, expulsion means permanent separation not only from the University of Iowa, but from every Iowa Board of Regents institution. That closes off Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa as transfer options. For a student whose academic and career plans depend on completing a degree within the Iowa public university system, expulsion isn’t a setback. It’s a door that closes permanently.
The Board of Regents Appeal & Why a Coordinated Defense Matters
A student facing expulsion may appeal the university’s final decision to the Iowa Board of Regents, a body external to the university itself. That right exists as a procedural protection, but it comes with a significant practical constraint: any sanctions imposed by the university remain in effect throughout the appeal. A student who is expelled doesn’t get to continue attending classes while challenging the outcome. The consequences are real and immediate from the moment the university issues its final decision, regardless of whether an appeal is pending.
The speed of the campus timeline makes early preparation essential. A student who waits until after a hearing to seek legal guidance has already made statements, submitted written responses, and participated in an investigation without any coordinated strategy. What a student says during a campus investigation can surface in a criminal proceeding, and a criminal case’s outcome can affect how a university-level appeal is framed. Managing both proceedings under one coordinated strategy is the difference between reactive and deliberate decision-making at every stage.
The campus timeline and the criminal timeline move independently, and both carry real consequences. Keegan, Tindal & Jaeger represents Eastern Iowa students facing Title IX allegations and parallel criminal matters. Call us at (319) 499-5524 for a consultation before you respond to either process.