Goss v. Lopez
419 U.S. 565 (1975)
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a public school student facing a temporary suspension of 10 days or less must be provided with oral or written notice of the charges and, if they deny them, an explanation of the evidence and an opportunity to present their side of the story.
Facts:
- Ohio state law provided for free public education for all residents between the ages of six and 21 and mandated school attendance.
- A separate Ohio statute, § 3313.66, empowered a school principal to suspend a student for misconduct for up to 10 days without requiring a hearing.
- During a period of widespread student unrest in February and March 1971, Dwight Lopez and eight other students were suspended from various public high schools in Columbus, Ohio.
- Lopez was suspended in connection with a disturbance in the school lunchroom, though he claimed he was an innocent bystander.
- Another student, Betty Crome, was suspended after being arrested during a demonstration at a different school.
- None of the suspended students were provided with a hearing either before or after their suspensions to determine the factual basis for the disciplinary action.
- The suspensions were recorded in the students' permanent school records, which could interfere with later opportunities for higher education and employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Nine students from the Columbus Public School System filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against school administrators, including Goss.
- The students alleged the Ohio law permitting suspensions without a hearing violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
- A three-judge panel of the district court was convened and found in favor of the students.
- The district court declared the Ohio statute unconstitutional and issued an injunction ordering the school administrators to remove the suspensions from the students' records.
- The school administrators (appellants) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require a public school to provide a student with notice and a hearing before imposing a temporary suspension of 10 days or less?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes, the Due Process Clause requires that before a short-term suspension, a public school student must be given notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard. Ohio's establishment of a public education system creates a legitimate property interest for students in their education, which cannot be deprived without fundamentally fair procedures. Furthermore, a suspension for misconduct implicates a student's liberty interest in their reputation and good name. A 10-day suspension is not a 'de minimis' deprivation and therefore requires constitutional protection. The minimum process due is oral or written notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence if the student denies the charges, and an opportunity for the student to present their side of the story. In emergency situations where a student's presence poses a danger, they may be removed immediately, with the notice and hearing to follow as soon as practicable.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
No, the Due Process Clause does not require notice and a hearing for a routine disciplinary suspension of 10 days or less. A student's entitlement to an education is defined by the state law that creates it, and Ohio law explicitly includes the power to suspend. Such a brief suspension does not constitute a 'severe detriment or grievous loss' necessary to trigger due process protections. This decision represents an unprecedented judicial intrusion into the daily operations of public schools, which require broad authority to maintain discipline. The Court's ruling constitutionalizes routine classroom discipline and will likely lead to a flood of litigation, undermining the authority of school officials and disrupting the educational process.
Analysis:
This decision established for the first time that students' constitutional due process rights extend to short-term disciplinary suspensions. It rejected the argument that such suspensions are de minimis and instead affirmed that a student's education is a protected property interest. By mandating a minimal, informal hearing, the Court created a national baseline for procedural fairness in school discipline that balances student rights against the administrative needs of schools. The ruling significantly impacted school disciplinary policies nationwide, requiring them to incorporate at least rudimentary notice and an opportunity to be heard for even brief suspensions.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Goss v. Lopez (1975)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"