Goss v. Lopez

Goss v. Lopez Handout Takeaway Students who are suspended for 10 days are entitled to hearing under Due Process, but not a full-blown hearing with counsel  Don’t look at the weight, look at the nature of the interest at stake. As long as the property interest isn’t so small that it’s without merit, the gravity is irrelevant to whether it needs to be protected by Due Process. Property interest in educational benefits and liberty interest in reputation are not so insubstantial that we can allow any procedure the school choose to be constitutional  Heading  SCOTUS, 1975 Parties  Plaintiff- 9 students who were suspended for 10 days or less  Defendant- Columbus Board of Education and various administrators at different schools in the district Procedural  3 judge panel in federal court Facts/History  Lower court held that plaintiff were denied due process because they were suspended and didn’t have a hearing before being suspended or within a reasonable time after  Ohio Code is unconstitutional in allowing for suspensions without a timely hearing  Injunction- suspensions removed from students’ records  School administrators appealed Historical Facts Plaintiffs  9 students were suspended at various schools  One of the students was suspended for going to a protest at another school  One student was suspended where 75 other students were also suspended and the student claims that he wasn’t involved in the altercation  None of the students had a hearing, but 4 were offered the opportunity to attend a conference after the suspension started to discuss the student’s future  There was no testimony about one the student’s suspensions and his school didn’t show any reference to a suspension either History  Ohio code- Suspension and expulsion both require that a parent is notified within 24 hours and give the reason for the suspension/expulsion. o For expulsion, there is an opportunity to appeal and be heard at a BOE meeting, but the same is not true for suspensions  School district has no written procedure for suspensions other than referencing the Ohio code Form of Relief  Remove suspensions from the students’ records Issue(s)  Are students who are suspended from school for 10-days entitled Due Process (to be heard) under the 14th Amendment? – court says yes Arguments Plaintiffs  Denied due process of law contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment in that they were temporarily suspended from high school (denied rights to an education) without a hearing before the suspension or within a reasonable time after the suspension. Defendant  because there is no constitutional right to an education at public expense, the Due Process Clause does not protect against expulsions from the public school system o court- misconceiving the nature of the issue. 14th Amendment forbids the State to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process  Outcome/Holding Key Rules or Principles     Court’s Reasoning         of law. Protected interests in property are normally ‘not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined’ by an independent source such as state statutes or rules entitling the citizen to certain benefits. Even if there is a right to public education, the Clause comes into play only when the State subjects a student to a “severe detriment or grievous loss” and a 10-day suspension is not this o Court- don’t look at the weight, look at the nature of the interest at stake. o As long as the property interest isn’t so small that it’s without merit, the gravity is irrelevant to whether it needs to be protected by Due Process. o Property interest in educational benefits and liberty interest in reputation are not so insubstantial that we can allow any procedure the school choose to be constitutional Affirmed Students facing temporary suspension have interests qualifying for protection of the Due Process Clause, and due process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story. There need be no delay between the time ‘notice’ is given and the time of the hearing. In the great majority of cases the disciplinarian may informally discuss the alleged misconduct with the student minutes after it has occurred. We hold only that, in being given an opportunity to explain his version of the facts at this discussion, the student first be told what he is accused of doing and what the basis of the accusation is. as a general rule notice and hearing should come before removal of the student from school except where student is a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting the academic process Plaintiffs had a right to education. Can’t take away that right without fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct occurred Ohio isn’t required to establish a school system, but because they have done so, the students have rights? Education is like a property interest that is protected under Due Process Clause and cannot be taken away without minimum procedures required by the Clause The Due Process Clause forbids arbitrary deprivations of liberty. ‘Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him,’ o Suspending might hurt students’ reputations, chance at later opportunities for education and employment, etc. At the very minimum, therefore, students facing suspension and the consequent interference with a protected property interest must be given some kind of notice and afforded some kind of hearing. the timing and content of the notice and the nature of the hearing will depend on appropriate accommodation of the competing interests involved. The student's interest is to avoid unfair or mistaken exclusion from the educational process and the consequences that come with it. The Due Process Clause will not shield him from properly imposed suspensions, but it disserves both his interest and the interest of the State if his suspension is in fact unwarranted. Admin often rely on the facts of others and these are often disputed. The risk of error is NOT trivial and we should do what we can to reduce this risk if it can be done without prohibitive cost or interference with the educational process. Concurrence or Dissent  Suspension is a valuable educational device  Imposing elaborate hearing procedures in every suspension case would not be appropriate  This is not overly burdensome for admin. These are things that any fair-minded principal would support. o At one of the schools, the principal even said that they had this some procedure that the court is recommending in place, they just didn’t follow it in this situation  hearings in connection with short suspensions don’t need to afford the student the opportunity to secure counsel, to confront and cross-examine witnesses supporting the charge, or to call his own witnesses to verify his version of the incident o this would overwhelm school admin, divert resources and may cost more than it would save in educational effectiveness  this will help prevent erroneous actions. o Admin will be aware if there are disputes in the facts o Admin’s discretion will be more informed and hopefully prevent error  This only applies to short-term-suspensions not exceeding 10 days. Longer suspensions may require more formal procedures  unnecessarily opens avenues for judicial intervention in the operation of our public schools that may affect adversely the quality of education