Petitioners
James Ingraham and Roosevelt Andrews, students at Drew Junior High School, Dade County, Florida
Respondents
Willie J. Wright, principal at Drew Junior High School; Lemmie Deliford, assistant principal; Solomon Barnes, assistant to the principal; Edward L. Whigham, superintendent of the Dade County School System
Petitioners' Claim
That the corporal punishment they had received at Drew Junior High School haddeprived them of their constitutional rights under the Eighth and FourteenthAmendments.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Bruce S. Rogow
Chief Lawyer for Respondents
Frank A. Howard, Jr.
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
19 April 1977
Decision
That the punishment did not constitute a deprivation of the petitioners' constitutional rights--although its admitted severity might entitle them to criminal penalties in the Florida courts.
Significance
The Court upheld the principle that corporal punishment is permissible in thepublic schools, that excessive corporal punishment is not usually a constitutional violation though it may be a criminal one, and that students and theirparents are not entitled to a formal hearing before corporal punishment is administered. Generally, the decision has made it far more difficult for parents and students concerned about corporal punishment to turn to federal courtsfor relief.
In October of 1970, James Ingraham was attending eighth grade at Charles R. Drew Junior High in Dade County, Florida. Roosevelt Andrews was enrolled in the ninth grade in the same school. Corporal punishment, allowed throughout the237 schools in Dade County (as well as in most of Florida), was especially severe at Charles Drew.
Technically, corporal punishment was supposed to be limited to one particularauthorized punishment:
Ingraham and Andrews received punishments far more severe than that, as did many of their classmates. For example, Ingraham, who had been slow to respondto his teacher's instructions, was given more than 20 licks with a paddle while being held over a table in the principal's office--a beating so severe that he suffered a hematoma and had to stay out of school for several days. Andrews had been paddled several times for minor misbehavioral problems. Twice hewas struck on his arms, once so hard that he lost the full use of his arm for a week.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
Ingraham and Andrews filed suit against their principal, the others in the principal's office who had helped punish them, and the superintendent of Dade County schools. They were filing not just for themselves, but also as a classaction on behalf of all Dade County students. They claimed that the type of corporal punishment common at their school deprived them of their rights underthe Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
The Eighth Amendment forbids "cruel and unusual punishment." The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees everyone "due process" before being deprived of life, liberty, or property. In this case, the students claimed that since their punishment had deprived them of their liberty, they had been entitled to a hearingor some other procedure before they were punished.
The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court, which was sharply divided on this issue. A majority of five denied the boys' suit, finding that corporalpunishment, even of the severe type that the boys had suffered, does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment." Nor did the majority believe that students were entitled to a hearing before corporal punishment was administered.A minority of four strongly dissented.
"The Openness of the School Environment"
Justice Powell, writing for the majority, laid out three major arguments. First, Powell declared that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment does not apply to public schools. In almost all cases, Powell wrote, the clause applies only to criminals. The clause is particularly inappropriate to schools, he argued, "in light of the openness of the school environment, [which] affords significant protection against unjustified corporal punishment of schoolchildren." Because children are free to leave school at theend of the day and because there are witnesses around to virtually everythingthat occurs, the student is in a very different position from the criminal who is hidden away in a jail where he or she must remain for months or even years.
Second, Powell said, reasonable corporal punishment is acceptable in principle as a means of maintaining order and discipline in the schools. The mere fact of corporal punishment cannot be defined as "cruel and unusual punishment."Severe and unusual corporal punishment--such as that received by Ingraham and Andrews--can be remedied by having parents sue teachers and school districts for civil or even criminal penalties. In effect, Powell was transferring this issue from a federal court down to a state court level.
Finally, Powell held that administering corporal punishment without giving the student a hearing did not violate the student's Fourteenth Amendment rightsto "due process." Powell said that in this case, the interest of the schoolin using corporal punishment had to be balanced against the interest of the child's personal liberty. Powell feared that if schools had to offer hearingsevery time they administered corporal punishment, they might stop using corporal punishment altogether, and a valuable disciplinary tool would be lost. Ifsociety did wish to abolish corporal punishment, Powell said, the way to doso was through the legislature, not through the courts.
"Punishments So Barbaric and Inhumane"
Justice White, joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens, strongly disagreed with virtually every part of the majority argument. First, he said, there was no evidence that the Eighth Amendment was meant to apply only to criminals. Second, even though schools were more open places than prisons, thatdid not guarantee that no violations of the Eighth Amendment would ever occurthere. Third, he did not see why schools could not offer an "informal give-and-take between student and disciplinarian," which would give students "an opportunity to explain [their] version of the facts" before corporal punishmentwas administered. In fact, this type of school hearing had already been called for in another Supreme Court case.
White did not see how applying the Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendments in this way could possibly discourage teachers from continuing to exercise reasonable corporal punishment, whereas it might very well prevent them from exercising unreasonable punishments--punishments "so barbaric and inhumane that we will not permit them to be imposed on anyone, no matter how opprobrious the offense." White added, somewhat sarcastically, " . . . if it is constitutionally impermissible to cut off someone's ear for the commission of murder, it must be unconstitutional to cut off a child's ear for being late to class."
Corporal Punishment Continues
Ingraham v. Wright has made it much more difficult for parents and students to oppose corporal punishments in the federal courts. Because the decision in Ingraham suggested that severe and unjustified punishments be pursued as civil or criminal cases in state court, victims of corporal punishment have no national standard for which to appeal. Instead, they must rely oneach state's definition of what type of punishment is unreasonable and whattype of relief should be offered.
Since Ingraham, a number of federal courts have either refused to hearor have ruled against students who suffered extreme corporal punishment, such as a girl whose teacher pricked her upper arm with a straight pin and a boywhose coach struck him eight times in the kidney area.
Although the Court found that procedural due process did not apply to corporal punishment, it did reserve the possibility that substantive due process might apply. Whereas procedural due process concerns the procedures that are needed before depriving someone of life, liberty, or property, substantive due process refers to the fact of someone having been deprived. In other words, aperson who had suffered from a severe and unreasonable application of corporal punishment could not complain that he or she had not received a fair hearing. But that person could complain about what actually happened.
Thus, in the wake of Ingraham, one girl complained of being beaten with a five-inch wide rubber paddle, being shoved against a desk, and being "stricken repeatedly and violently," so that she had to go to the emergency roomand to remain at the hospital for ten days. A federal court considered this treatment to have violated the girl's right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet because there were no clear federal guidelines as to the kind of punishment that warranted this ruling, other courts were reluctant to make similar decisions.
Ingraham v. Wright went a long way toward establishing the legitimacyof corporal punishment without any type of hearing or procedural constraint.Those who are opposed to either the use or the abuse of corporal punishment must now seek their remedies in state legislatures and courts.
Related Cases
James Ingraham and Roosevelt Andrews, students at Drew Junior High School, Dade County, Florida
Respondents
Willie J. Wright, principal at Drew Junior High School; Lemmie Deliford, assistant principal; Solomon Barnes, assistant to the principal; Edward L. Whigham, superintendent of the Dade County School System
Petitioners' Claim
That the corporal punishment they had received at Drew Junior High School haddeprived them of their constitutional rights under the Eighth and FourteenthAmendments.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Bruce S. Rogow
Chief Lawyer for Respondents
Frank A. Howard, Jr.
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
19 April 1977
Decision
That the punishment did not constitute a deprivation of the petitioners' constitutional rights--although its admitted severity might entitle them to criminal penalties in the Florida courts.
Significance
The Court upheld the principle that corporal punishment is permissible in thepublic schools, that excessive corporal punishment is not usually a constitutional violation though it may be a criminal one, and that students and theirparents are not entitled to a formal hearing before corporal punishment is administered. Generally, the decision has made it far more difficult for parents and students concerned about corporal punishment to turn to federal courtsfor relief.
In October of 1970, James Ingraham was attending eighth grade at Charles R. Drew Junior High in Dade County, Florida. Roosevelt Andrews was enrolled in the ninth grade in the same school. Corporal punishment, allowed throughout the237 schools in Dade County (as well as in most of Florida), was especially severe at Charles Drew.
Technically, corporal punishment was supposed to be limited to one particularauthorized punishment:
. . . paddling a student on the buttockswith a flat wooden paddle measuring less than two feet long, three to four inches wide, and about one-half inch thick . . . limited to one to five "licks"or blows with the paddle and [resulting] in no apparent physical injury to the student.
Ingraham and Andrews received punishments far more severe than that, as did many of their classmates. For example, Ingraham, who had been slow to respondto his teacher's instructions, was given more than 20 licks with a paddle while being held over a table in the principal's office--a beating so severe that he suffered a hematoma and had to stay out of school for several days. Andrews had been paddled several times for minor misbehavioral problems. Twice hewas struck on his arms, once so hard that he lost the full use of his arm for a week.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
Ingraham and Andrews filed suit against their principal, the others in the principal's office who had helped punish them, and the superintendent of Dade County schools. They were filing not just for themselves, but also as a classaction on behalf of all Dade County students. They claimed that the type of corporal punishment common at their school deprived them of their rights underthe Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
The Eighth Amendment forbids "cruel and unusual punishment." The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees everyone "due process" before being deprived of life, liberty, or property. In this case, the students claimed that since their punishment had deprived them of their liberty, they had been entitled to a hearingor some other procedure before they were punished.
The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court, which was sharply divided on this issue. A majority of five denied the boys' suit, finding that corporalpunishment, even of the severe type that the boys had suffered, does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment." Nor did the majority believe that students were entitled to a hearing before corporal punishment was administered.A minority of four strongly dissented.
"The Openness of the School Environment"
Justice Powell, writing for the majority, laid out three major arguments. First, Powell declared that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment does not apply to public schools. In almost all cases, Powell wrote, the clause applies only to criminals. The clause is particularly inappropriate to schools, he argued, "in light of the openness of the school environment, [which] affords significant protection against unjustified corporal punishment of schoolchildren." Because children are free to leave school at theend of the day and because there are witnesses around to virtually everythingthat occurs, the student is in a very different position from the criminal who is hidden away in a jail where he or she must remain for months or even years.
Second, Powell said, reasonable corporal punishment is acceptable in principle as a means of maintaining order and discipline in the schools. The mere fact of corporal punishment cannot be defined as "cruel and unusual punishment."Severe and unusual corporal punishment--such as that received by Ingraham and Andrews--can be remedied by having parents sue teachers and school districts for civil or even criminal penalties. In effect, Powell was transferring this issue from a federal court down to a state court level.
Finally, Powell held that administering corporal punishment without giving the student a hearing did not violate the student's Fourteenth Amendment rightsto "due process." Powell said that in this case, the interest of the schoolin using corporal punishment had to be balanced against the interest of the child's personal liberty. Powell feared that if schools had to offer hearingsevery time they administered corporal punishment, they might stop using corporal punishment altogether, and a valuable disciplinary tool would be lost. Ifsociety did wish to abolish corporal punishment, Powell said, the way to doso was through the legislature, not through the courts.
"Punishments So Barbaric and Inhumane"
Justice White, joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens, strongly disagreed with virtually every part of the majority argument. First, he said, there was no evidence that the Eighth Amendment was meant to apply only to criminals. Second, even though schools were more open places than prisons, thatdid not guarantee that no violations of the Eighth Amendment would ever occurthere. Third, he did not see why schools could not offer an "informal give-and-take between student and disciplinarian," which would give students "an opportunity to explain [their] version of the facts" before corporal punishmentwas administered. In fact, this type of school hearing had already been called for in another Supreme Court case.
White did not see how applying the Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendments in this way could possibly discourage teachers from continuing to exercise reasonable corporal punishment, whereas it might very well prevent them from exercising unreasonable punishments--punishments "so barbaric and inhumane that we will not permit them to be imposed on anyone, no matter how opprobrious the offense." White added, somewhat sarcastically, " . . . if it is constitutionally impermissible to cut off someone's ear for the commission of murder, it must be unconstitutional to cut off a child's ear for being late to class."
Corporal Punishment Continues
Ingraham v. Wright has made it much more difficult for parents and students to oppose corporal punishments in the federal courts. Because the decision in Ingraham suggested that severe and unjustified punishments be pursued as civil or criminal cases in state court, victims of corporal punishment have no national standard for which to appeal. Instead, they must rely oneach state's definition of what type of punishment is unreasonable and whattype of relief should be offered.
Since Ingraham, a number of federal courts have either refused to hearor have ruled against students who suffered extreme corporal punishment, such as a girl whose teacher pricked her upper arm with a straight pin and a boywhose coach struck him eight times in the kidney area.
Although the Court found that procedural due process did not apply to corporal punishment, it did reserve the possibility that substantive due process might apply. Whereas procedural due process concerns the procedures that are needed before depriving someone of life, liberty, or property, substantive due process refers to the fact of someone having been deprived. In other words, aperson who had suffered from a severe and unreasonable application of corporal punishment could not complain that he or she had not received a fair hearing. But that person could complain about what actually happened.
Thus, in the wake of Ingraham, one girl complained of being beaten with a five-inch wide rubber paddle, being shoved against a desk, and being "stricken repeatedly and violently," so that she had to go to the emergency roomand to remain at the hospital for ten days. A federal court considered this treatment to have violated the girl's right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet because there were no clear federal guidelines as to the kind of punishment that warranted this ruling, other courts were reluctant to make similar decisions.
Ingraham v. Wright went a long way toward establishing the legitimacyof corporal punishment without any type of hearing or procedural constraint.Those who are opposed to either the use or the abuse of corporal punishment must now seek their remedies in state legislatures and courts.
Related Cases
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).
- Frost v. City and County of Honolulu, 584 F.Supp. 356 (1984).
- Gelber By and Through Gelber v. Rozas, 584 F.Supp. 902 (1984).
- Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385 (1997)
- Township of West Orange v. Whitman, 8 F.Supp.2d 408 (1998).
User Comments Add a comment…