Quick Summary
Nine Ohio high school students (plaintiffs) were suspended without hearings under a state statute. They sued Goss and other school officials (defendants), claiming this violated their procedural due process rights.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether such suspensions without hearings were unconstitutional. The Court concluded that they were, as education is a protected property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, requiring notice and a hearing for deprivations like suspensions.
Facts of the Case
Nine students from Columbus, Ohio (plaintiffs), including Dwight Lopez and Betty Crome, experienced suspensions of up to ten days from their public high schools without prior hearings. This action was taken under an Ohio statute allowing school principals to suspend students for misconduct.
The students challenged these suspensions, arguing that they violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying them due process.
The plaintiffs’ suspensions followed incidents of alleged disruptive behavior, but no formal hearings were conducted to ascertain the facts or give the students a chance to defend themselves. The lack of a hearing meant that the students were unable to contest the charges before being excluded from school.
Procedural History
- The plaintiffs filed suit in district court against school administrators, claiming violations of their procedural due process rights.
- The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the removal of suspension references from the students’ records.
- The school administrators appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether suspending a student for up to ten days without a hearing violates the procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule of Law
Public education is a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and students cannot be deprived of it without appropriate due process, which includes notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court considered that while schools must maintain order and discipline, students have a legitimate claim to an education as a property interest. The Court determined that suspending a student without a hearing imposes a significant penalty and potentially harms the student’s reputation and future opportunities.
As such, it requires at least minimal due process protections. The Court concluded that suspending students without due process could lead to unjust or mistaken removals from school.
Therefore, at a minimum, students are entitled to notice of the charges against them and an opportunity for an informal hearing to present their side of the story before being suspended, except in emergencies where immediate removal is justified.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the plaintiffs were denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when they were suspended without a prior hearing. The Court mandated minimal due process protections for suspensions of up to ten days.
Dissenting Opinions
Justices Powell, Burger, Blackmun, and Rehnquist dissented, arguing that the decision unnecessarily intrudes into educational processes and that short suspensions do not significantly infringe on a student’s right to education.
Key Takeaways
- Educational entitlements are considered property interests protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Students must be given notice and an opportunity for an informal hearing before suspension, except in emergency situations where immediate removal is necessary.
- The Supreme Court’s decision emphasized the importance of procedural due process in school disciplinary actions.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What constitutes a 'property interest' under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
A ‘property interest’ includes not only tangible assets but also certain government-provided benefits that individuals have a legitimate claim or entitlement to, such as public employment or welfare benefits.
- For example: A government job where employment can only be terminated for cause might create a property interest requiring due process before dismissal.
What minimal procedural protections must be afforded in a due process hearing?
Minimal procedural protections include the right to receive notice of the charges, the opportunity to hear and respond to evidence, and the chance to present one’s own case and argument.
- For example: In eviction proceedings, a tenant must be given notice of the eviction and an opportunity to appear in court to contest it.
In what situations might due process allow for immediate action without a prior hearing?
Due process may allow immediate action without a prior hearing in emergency situations where delay would threaten public safety, welfare, or prevent significant financial loss.
- For example: If a health inspector finds an imminent health hazard in a restaurant, immediate closure may be ordered without a hearing to protect public health.
References
Was this case brief helpful?