In his opinion, Stearns--who referred to the case as "somewhat unusual"--said the fundamental flaw in the plaintiffs' case was their claim that because they had completed their academic requirements, they were no longer really students subject to the College's rules.

"A reasonable Harvard College student would recognize the fact...that a school has an inherent, if circumscribed, right to regulate student conduct," Stearns wrote in his decision.

"While it is not difficult to imagine cases in which a school might improperly withhold a degree for impermissible reasons...this case is manifestly not one of them," he added.

If the students had persisted with their challenge, the court would have proceeded to the second claim of the suit, which argued that the College's administrative board proceedings were so unjust that they exceeded the wide area of discretion the government usually gives to college disciplinary processes.

The plaintiffs had maintained their innocence all along, but the College had filed for preemptive "summary judgement" on the second claim, arguing that the administrative board had sufficient reason to believe the students had accepted money for work they had not performed.

Harvey A. Silverglate, who represents Abraham Tsoukalidis, was on vacation this week and could not be reached for comment