St. John Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education
294 F.2d 150, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3767 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Due process requires notice and some opportunity for a hearing before students at a tax-supported college are expelled for misconduct, as the state cannot condition attendance upon the renunciation of constitutional procedural rights.
Facts:
- On February 25, 1960, approximately twenty-nine Negro students, including the six plaintiffs, entered a publicly owned lunch grill in the basement of the Montgomery County Courthouse and asked to be served, refusing to leave when service was denied and remaining in the corridor for about an hour.
- On the same date, Governor John Patterson, as chairman of the State Board of Education, advised Dr. H. Councill Trenholm, President of Alabama State College, to investigate the incident and consider disciplinary action.
- On February 26, 1960, several hundred Negro students from Alabama State College, including some plaintiffs, staged a mass attendance at a trial in the Montgomery County Courthouse and then marched approximately two miles back to the college.
- On February 27, 1960, several hundred Negro students, including some plaintiffs, staged mass demonstrations in Montgomery and Tuskegee, and Dr. Trenholm warned the student body, including plaintiffs Bernard Lee, Joseph Peterson, and Elroy Embry, to cease these disruptive demonstrations.
- On March 1, 1960, approximately six hundred students of Alabama State College, including some plaintiffs, marched to the steps of the State Capitol, where plaintiff Bernard Lee addressed them, calling for a strike and boycott of the college if any students were expelled.
- On March 2, 1960, the State Board of Education met, received reports from Governor Patterson and Dr. Trenholm regarding the students' activities and Dr. Trenholm’s inability to control future disruptions, and voted unanimously to expel nine students, including the six plaintiffs, and place twenty students on probation.
- On March 4 or 5, 1960, each of the plaintiffs received official notification of their expulsion from Alabama State College, but no formal charges were placed against them, and no hearing was granted prior to their expulsion.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs (students, including Dixon) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against the Alabama State Board of Education, seeking an injunction for their reinstatement following their expulsion.
- The District Court issued an opinion (186 F.Supp. 945) finding that no notice or opportunity for a hearing was required before students at a tax-supported college could be expelled for misconduct, and therefore denied the injunction.
- The students (appellants) appealed the District Court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 that students at a tax-supported college be given notice of specific charges and an opportunity for a hearing before being expelled for misconduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Rives, Circuit Judge
Yes, due process requires notice and some opportunity for a hearing before students at a tax-supported college are expelled for misconduct. Whenever a governmental body acts to injure an individual, the Constitution requires the act to be consonant with due process of law. While there may not be an inherent constitutional right to attend a public college, the government cannot deprive an individual of this privilege once granted without due process, as emphasized in Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy. The right to remain at a public institution of higher learning is an interest of extremely great value, vital for earning a livelihood and fulfilling civic duties, and arbitrary expulsion can cause significant harm and prejudice future educational opportunities. The power of a public college to expel students is not unlimited and cannot be exercised arbitrarily, especially when the Board hears only one side of the issue, increasing the possibility of unfair application of rules. Previous precedents often cited by lower courts concerning a college's right to dismiss students without divulging reasons primarily pertained to private universities, where the relationship is contractual and explicit waivers may be obtained, a standard inapplicable to state-supported institutions where the state cannot condition a privilege on the renunciation of constitutional rights. For public colleges, the historical cases upheld the adequacy of hearings provided, not the absence of any hearing whatsoever. The court stresses that the minimum due process requirements for expulsion from a state college for misconduct should include: a statement of specific charges and grounds; identification of witnesses against the student and a report of their testimony; and an opportunity for the student to present their defense, including oral testimony or written affidavits, to the Board or an administrative official. A full-dress judicial hearing is not required, but the rudiments of an adversary proceeding must be preserved.
Dissenting - Cameron, Circuit Judge
No, due process does not require notice and a hearing for student expulsions at public colleges under these circumstances, as such judicial intervention is inappropriate for school discipline. The opinion emphasizes that the Fifth Amendment does not require a trial-type hearing in every conceivable case of government impairment of private interests, and that the 'precise nature of the government function involved as well as of the private interest that has been affected by governmental action' must be considered. Schools, by their nature, require many rules for student conduct that are not criminal, and courts are ill-equipped to deal with the practical and ethical considerations of school management. Extending federal injunctive power to day-to-day student discipline would turn federal functionaries into 'wet nurses or baby sitters.' The weight of authority, the dissent argues, indicates that no formal hearing is required for student expulsions and that college authorities have broad discretion, with courts interfering only in cases of clear abuse of discretion. The evidence clearly showed the students' widespread participation as 'ringleaders' in multiple disruptive demonstrations, including defiance of college and state authority, insubordination, and inciting disorder, which they largely failed to refute in court. The State Board of Education made a 'leisurely and careful investigation' and acted in good faith to prevent 'complete disruption of discipline and probable breaking up of a school' in the face of widespread student unrest. The school's existing rules did not require notice or a hearing, and prior practices did not establish such a precedent. Imposing formal charges, witness disclosure, and other judicial procedures would be 'unrealistic and impractical,' leading to 'confusion and chaos' in state educational systems and undermining institutional discipline. The responsibility for maintaining safety, health, and morals, including in education, primarily rests with the states, not the federal government.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision that profoundly shaped student rights in public educational institutions, extending due process protections to collegiate disciplinary proceedings. By recognizing that students have a valuable property interest in their education, even if not a fundamental constitutional right to attend, the court established that states cannot arbitrarily withdraw this interest without procedural safeguards. The decision marked a significant shift from the previous 'in loco parentis' doctrine, where colleges acted as parents with broad disciplinary authority, to one requiring governmental bodies to adhere to constitutional principles when taking actions affecting individual liberties. This ruling laid the groundwork for future cases, such as Goss v. Lopez, which extended similar minimum due process rights to public high school students. It underscored the principle that even privileges granted by the state cannot be conditioned upon the relinquishment of constitutional rights, ensuring a baseline of fairness and preventing arbitrary expulsions in public education.
