A federal judge has largely sided with the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, rejecting claims by two cadets who alleged the academy engaged in due-process violations after being disciplined for underage drinking.
In a Jan. 25 decision, U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack of the Eastern District of New York upheld a one-year academic “setback” given to cadets Marina Ronzoni and Morgan Mitchell.
Ronzoni and Mitchell sued the academy, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and acting Superintendent Anthony Ceraolo, arguing that the academy failed to follow its own rules and retaliated against them for appealing an earlier disciplinary decision.
The judge ruled that the academy’s honor board complied with due-process requirements and that its disciplinary action was supported by substantial evidence.
“The record shows that no Fifth Amendment violations occurred here,” Azrack wrote, concluding that the cadets received notice of the charges against them and were given a fair opportunity to present their defenses.
The case was opened after an Aug. 2024 beach outing of members of the academy’s men’s and women’s soccer teams.
An investigation found that some underage midshipmen were drinking alcohol during the event. Ronzoni and Mitchell, who were members of the women’s soccer team, denied any knowledge of underage drinking when they were interviewed.
Honor board investigators later concluded that the two cadets had lied in the interviews, which violated the academy’s honor code.
An initial honor board ordered Ronzoni and Mitchell to undergo a 45-day remediation program and perform extra duty. After the cadets appealed, another hearing was held before a new honor board.
Ceraolo then imposed a one-year setback, which delayed their eligibility to graduate from the class of 2026 to the class of 2027.
In the lawsuit, Ronzoni and Mitchell alleged that other midshipmen who admitted to drinking or initially lied received less harsh penalties, and that they were unfairly singled out for harsher punishment.
They also claimed the academy improperly restricted their ability to present new evidence and failed to include witness statements in the case record.
The court rejected the arguments, saying that the academy followed its honor manual and that any alleged procedural errors did not affect the outcome.
Azrack noted that service academies are afforded broad discretion in disciplinary decisions and that courts can not substitute their judgment for that of academy officials.
The judge also dismissed the cadets’ claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, ruling that the academy’s disciplinary decisions were neither arbitrary nor capricious and supported by the administrative record.
Ceraolo’s letters to the cadets were cited several times in the decision they released.
In a December letter to Mitchell, he wrote that two separate honor boards “unanimously found you in violation of the Honor Code based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented,” and that she had multiple opportunities to present her case.
The court denied the cadets’ request for an injunction that would have restored them to their original graduating class and dismissed their constitutional and statutory claims, so the one-year setbacks will still be enforced.
