Jim Dey: Shannon lawyers face tough test in federal court

Jan. 11—The document dump that accompanied basketball player Terrance Shannon Jr.'s request for court-ordered reinstatement to the Fighting Illini basketball team raises questions about the Kansas police investigation and cited shortcomings in the prosecutor's past performance.

But none of that will matter at 1:30 p.m. Friday, when Shannon's lawyers go to federal court in Springfield and request a court order reversing the University of Illinois' decision to suspend him until after a felony rape charge against him in Kansas is resolved.

Why? The Kansas case involves criminal law. Shannon's federal case — which is before U.S. Magistrate Jonathan Hawley of Peoria — is a civil dispute.

To win a temporary restraining order, Shannon's lawyers are required to make certain showings that demonstrate he is entitled to the extraordinary legal relief he seeks.

Retired Champaign County Circuit Court Judge Michael Jones said Shannon's lawyers will have to clear an "extremely high hurdle" to get the temporary restraining order they seek.

Shannon's lawsuit outlines the issues in play.

The lawsuit seeks to preserve the "status quo prior to the controversy when Shannon was playing for the team" as his lawsuit proceeds.

"That's it. The court at this stage is not to decide the merits of Shannon's civil case, and in no event is the court to address the merits of the (criminal) charges," the lawsuit states.

Essentially, Shannon's filing represents an attempt to stop the clock in his race against time.

That's because as the current college basketball season continues, Shannon's chances of being a high NBA draft choice and enjoying a lucrative professional career dissipate.

"There is no way to calculate in money terms the damage that is being done to Shannon with each day of the suspension," the lawsuit states.

To show that Shannon is entitled to reinstatement, his lawyers must show that:

* He has an ascertainable right that is in jeopardy.

* Without court intervention, he faces "immediate and irreparable harm."

* His prospects for success on the merits of his civil case are good.

* There is no other adequate legal remedy available.

The key to the Shannon's argument is that the UI violated his rights by unilaterally suspending him after criminal charges were filed in Kansas. His lawsuit contends Title IX of federal law requires his criminal case to be resolved before any penalties can be imposed.

Because the criminal case will take months to resolve, Shannon's lawyers allege the suspension is a gross assault on his professional prospects.

The Title IX issue is key because, in suspending Shannon, the UI concluded it does not apply to Shannon's criminal case.

Shannon's lawyers contend Title IX is applicable because the Sept. 8-9 trip he and teammate Josh Harmon took to Lawrence, Kan., was in the company of a basketball team graduate assistant assigned to chaperone them.

According to the lawsuit, the graduate assistant did so "in the scope of his employment," "in furtherance of Illinois' interests" and "at the direction of his superiors, also Illinois employees."

While the players' visit to Lawrence took place Sept. 8-9, Shannon was not charged in the case until late December.

UI athletic officials reportedly learned of the criminal probe in late September but allowed Shannon to remain on the team.

Shannon and Harmon traveled to Lawrence to attend the UI football game against Kansas. Afterward, in the company of KU basketball players, they visited a campus bar — the Jayhawk Cafe.

It was there — shortly after midnight — that a woman told police she responded to a wave from a man she has identified as Shannon. When she approached the man, she told police, he almost immediately started groping her under her clothing with one hand while having his other arm around a female companion.

She alleged he "penetrated" her digitally, action sufficient under Kansas law to charge him with rape.

Shannon has adamantly denied the allegation. Authorities said there are no eyewitnesses and that video cameras maintained by the cafe showed no interaction between the woman and Shannon.

The lawsuit contends the situation is the Title IX equivalent of a similar incident involving a UI student occurring on the UI campus.

That is, Shannon's lawyers acknowledge, a "disputed factual question." How it is answered will go a long way to determining if Shannon's lawyers can meet their burden of showing their client is likely to prevail on the legal merits of their claim.

"If he has a chance of winning, that's where it's going to be," Jones said.