Michigan student’s AI-cheating case barred from proceeding under a pseudonym

In Doe v. Regents of the University of Michigan, a student challenged a disciplinary probation and mandatory reflective essay imposed for purported AI-assisted paper writing. Citing documented anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder, she contended that her disability-related writing style was misread as AI output, violating the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and due-process rights. On February 9, 2026, she filed suit and sought to proceed under a pseudonym to avoid reputational harm and exposure of mental-health information.

Judge Laurie Michelson denied the request, stating that speculative stigma does not outweigh the presumption of open courts and that the plaintiff failed to show the matter involved “utmost intimacy.” The decision referenced prior cases where anonymity was granted only for sexual-assault or child-pornography claims, not for typical disability accommodations. Attorneys Brian M. Schwartz and Conrad R. Wolan represented the university, and Charles Blackwell’s motion to intervene was rendered moot.