Goss v. Lopez - Further Readings

Appellant
Norval Goss, et al.
Appellee
Eileen Lopez, et al.
Appellant's Claim
That the suspension of a public school student without a hearing does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Thomas A. Bustin
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Peter D. Roos
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
22 January 1975
Decision
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a studentis suspended without notice and hearing.
Significance
In Goss v. Lopez, the Supreme Court ruled that students have both a "property interest" and a "liberty interest" in public education.
According to Ohio law, a public school principal could suspend students for up to ten days without a hearing. A group of Columbus, Ohio high school students, who had been suspended from school for misconduct, brought a class actionsuit against school officials on the grounds that their constitutional rights had been violated. They sought to have Ohio's public school suspension statute declared unconstitutional and to have the suspensions removed from theirofficial records.
The Lower Court Rulings
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled in favor of the students. In their ruling, the three-judge panel declared that the students were denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because they were "suspended without hearing prior to suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter." The Ohio law was struck down, and school officialswere enjoined from issuing any more suspensions in this manner. Not pleased with this decision, the Ohio public school system appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
The Majority's Argument
In his majority opinion, Justice White held that students have a "property interest" in attending school since the state guarantees them a free public education. To suspend them from school, therefore, is in effect to deprive themof their property. While this interest must be balanced against the school system's interest in maintaining order and discipline, due process must be respected at all times. As Justice White wrote:

The authority possessed by the State to prescribe and enforce standards of conduct in its schools,although concededly very broad, must be exercised consistently with constitutional safeguards. Among other things, the State is constrained to recognize astudent's legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause and which may not be taken away for misconduct without adherence to the minimum procedures required by thatClause.

Justice White also found that, because a suspension can damage a child's reputation, the child's "liberty interest" may be violated if unsubstantiated charges are brought against him. Accordingly, the child must be given the opportunity to hear the charges and reply:

If sustained and recorded, those charges could seriously damage the students' standing with their fellow pupils and their teachers as well as interfere with later opportunities for higher education and employment. It is apparent that the claimed right of the State to determine unilaterally and without process whether that misconduct has occurred immediately collides with the requirements of the Constitution.

The Court did not go so far as to command that suspended students be grantedthe same rights as accused criminals. In doing so, it recognized the impracticality of such a scheme and noted the damaging effect this might have in an educational setting:

We stop short of construing the Due Process Clause to require, countrywide, that hearings in connection with short suspensions must afford the student the opportunity to secure counsel, to confront and cross-examine witnesses supporting the charge, or to call his own witnessesto verify his version of the incident. Brief disciplinary suspensions are almost countless. To impose in each such case even truncated trial-type procedures might well overwhelm administrative facilities in many places and, by diverting resources, cost more than it would save in educational effectiveness.Moreover, further formalizing the suspension process and escalating its formality and adversary nature may not only make it too costly as a regular disciplinary tool but also destroy its effectiveness as part of the teaching process.

The Dissent
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Powell dismissed the notion that a ten-daysuspension represents an infringement of the interests of students serious enough to require constitutional protection. His dissent contended that the Court's decision opened the door for unnecessary meddling by the courts into the day-to-day operations of the public school system:

The State'sinterest, broadly put, is in the proper functioning of its public school system for the benefit of all pupils and the public generally. Few rulings wouldinterfere more extensively in the daily functioning of schools than subjecting routine discipline to the formalities and judicial oversight of due process. Suspensions are one of the traditional means--ranging from keeping a student after class to permanent expulsion--used to maintain discipline in the schools. It is common knowledge that maintaining order and reasonable decorum inschool buildings and classrooms is a major educational problem, and one which has increased significantly in magnitude in recent years. Often the teacher, in protecting the rights of other children to an education (if not his or their safety), is compelled to rely on the power to suspend.

Goss v. Lopez raised some basic and vital questions in the areas of public education, individual rights, and judicial intervention. The narrow decision in this case reflected the strong arguments on both sides of the issues.
Related Cases

• Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
  
• Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
  
• Connell v. Higgenbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971).
  
• Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974).
  
• Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).