The electronic ABA Journal summarizes this report from the NY Post (URL below): St John's revoked the admission of a 3L scholarship student who is #3 in the class and has what looks to be a stellar resume because he did not reveal all the details of a since-expunged drug conviction when he was 21 or 22 (in 1999). He was planning to reveal his criminal history to the Character Committee and, in anticipation of doing so, he asked St. John's for a letter of support. Instead, the school expelled him.
Now, it does happen that when students come close to admission they recall an incident from a misspent youth in greater detail than they revealed on application, which may even have omitted it entirely. The character committees may then ask whether the incident was revealed (or fully so) when applying to law school. If not, the student will have to return to the school for a letter saying that he or she would have been admitted anyway.
In my experience, if the discrepancy is not significant or the incident, even if not revealed on application, is "small potatoes," or if there is an honest mistake ("it was expunged and your question on the application did not make it clear that I had to reveal an expunged conviction" -- which by the way is sometimes so but usually not), the school will relent.
So it is astonishing to see a retroactive withdrawal of admission. The news story is unclear on the depth of the discrepancy between what was revealed and the truth. Perhaps that explains it but I think any discrepancy would have to quite dramatic and the underlying (unrevealed) conduct most serious to justify this academic "capital" sanction. The student has sued. I don't know his chances but based on what we know, and there may be much we do not know, this seems a serious overreaction by the school. That doesn't mean the student wins. I suspect the claim sounds in contract.