Honig v. Doe
484 U.S. 305 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'stay-put' provision of the Education of the Handicapped Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(3), prohibits school authorities from unilaterally excluding a disabled child from their current educational placement for dangerous or disruptive conduct stemming from their disability during the pendency of review proceedings.
Facts:
- John Doe, a 17-year-old student identified as emotionally disturbed, had an Individualized Educational Program (IEP) that noted his difficulty controlling his impulses and anger.
- In November 1980, after being taunted by a peer, Doe choked the student and kicked out a school window.
- In response, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) suspended Doe for five days and then sought to expel him, extending his suspension indefinitely until the expulsion proceedings were completed.
- Jack Smith, another student identified as emotionally disturbed, exhibited disruptive behaviors including stealing, extortion, and making lewd comments to female classmates.
- After Smith made further lewd comments, SFUSD suspended him for five days and recommended his expulsion, indefinitely extending his suspension pending the outcome of the proceedings.
- The misconduct of both John Doe and Jack Smith was related to their respective disabilities.
Procedural Posture:
- John Doe sued the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and the California Superintendent of Public Instruction in the U.S. District Court, alleging violations of the EHA.
- Jack Smith intervened in Doe's lawsuit as a plaintiff.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the students and issued a permanent injunction preventing the school district from indefinitely suspending disabled students for disability-related misconduct.
- The SFUSD and the State Superintendent (petitioner) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court, holding that the 'stay-put' provision contains no 'dangerousness' exception, but it modified the injunction to permit fixed suspensions of up to 30 school days.
- Bill Honig, the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, petitioned for and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 unilateral indefinite suspension of a disabled child for disability-related misconduct violate the 'stay-put' provision of the Education of the Handicapped Act, which mandates that a child shall remain in their 'then current educational placement' during the pendency of any review proceedings?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes. The unilateral indefinite suspension of a disabled child for disability-related misconduct violates the 'stay-put' provision of the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA). The plain language of § 1415(e)(3) is unequivocal, stating the child 'shall remain' in their current placement, and it contains no exception for dangerousness. Congress intentionally stripped schools of the unilateral authority to exclude disabled children, whom they had historically and improperly removed from the classroom. Schools are not left powerless; they may use standard disciplinary procedures like detention or timeouts, impose short-term suspensions of up to ten school days (which do not constitute a 'change in placement'), and, if parents refuse to agree to an interim placement for a dangerous child, seek injunctive relief from a court under § 1415(e)(2).
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
This case is moot and the Court lacks authority to decide it. The dissent does not address the merits of the stay-put provision. The controversy is moot because respondent John Doe is now too old to be covered by the EHA, and there is no 'demonstrated probability' that respondent Jack Smith will re-enroll in public school and be subjected to the same unilateral exclusion. The 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception to mootness requires a high probability of recurrence for the same party, which has not been met here, as Smith's return to school is speculative.
Concurring - Chief Justice Rehnquist
The concurrence agrees with the majority that the case is not moot but writes separately to suggest that the Court's mootness jurisprudence should be reconsidered. The doctrine of mootness should be viewed as prudential rather than a strict Article III constitutional mandate. Once the Supreme Court has granted certiorari and expended its resources to review a case, it should have the discretion to decide the important legal issues presented, even if intervening events have technically rendered the specific dispute moot.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the procedural protections for disabled students under federal law, curbing the disciplinary authority of schools. It clarified that the EHA's 'stay-put' provision is a near-absolute mandate, forcing school districts to seek either parental consent or judicial intervention to remove a dangerous child, rather than resorting to unilateral 'self-help' measures like indefinite suspension or expulsion. The ruling shifts the ultimate authority for making placement changes in dangerous situations from school administrators to the courts. It ensures that a child's education is not interrupted during lengthy review processes, reinforcing the EHA's core principle of preventing the exclusion of disabled students from public education.
Unlock the full brief for Honig v. Doe