419 U.S. 565 (1975)
In February and March 1971 a period of widespread student unrest occurred throughout the Columbus, Ohio Public School System.1 During that time nine named high school students were each suspended for up to ten days pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3313.66.2 The suspensions were imposed by school principals without any hearing to determine the facts underlying the charges.3
Six of the students attended Marion-Franklin High School.4 Rudolph Sutton physically attacked a police officer in the presence of the principal while the officer was removing Tyrone Washington from the auditorium; both Sutton and Washington were suspended immediately.5 Susan Cooper, Deborah Fox, Clarence Byars, and Bruce Harris were suspended for similar disruptive or disobedient conduct that occurred in the presence of administrators.6 None of these students received a hearing, although each was later offered a post-suspension conference with parents.7
Dwight Lopez, a student at Central High School, was suspended after a lunchroom disturbance that caused physical damage to school property; he testified he was an innocent bystander and that at least seventy-five other students were suspended the same day.8 Betty Crome, a student at McGuffey Junior High School, was arrested at a demonstration at another high school, released without formal charges, and notified the next morning that she had been suspended for ten days.9 No school official testified regarding the basis for either Lopez’s or Crome’s suspension.10 Carl Smith was also suspended, although the record contained no testimony or file materials describing the incident.11
Ohio law required a principal to notify a suspended student’s parents within twenty-four hours and to state the reasons for the action, but the statute provided no hearing procedure for suspensions of ten days or less.12 At the time of these events the Columbus Public School System had issued no written procedures governing suspensions beyond the statute itself.13 Each school had, however, described the conduct that could result in suspension.14
The nine students filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Columbus Board of Education and school administrators of the CPSS.15 The complaint sought a declaration that § 3313.66 was unconstitutional, an injunction against future suspensions without hearing, and an order requiring removal of all references to the suspensions from the students’ records.16 A three-judge federal district court heard the evidence, declared the suspensions invalid, ordered expungement of the records, and awarded each named plaintiff fifty dollars in damages.17 The school administrators appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.18
Whether students suspended from public high school for up to ten days without a hearing were denied due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment?19
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a student facing suspension from a public school be given oral or written notice of the charges against him.20 If he denies them, he must receive an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story.21 The hearing must occur at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.22
Yes. The nine students were suspended without notice of the charges or an opportunity to present their side of the story.23 The suspensions were imposed by school principals without any hearing to determine the facts underlying the charges. This procedure violated the minimum requirements of due process protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.24
The students were denied due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.25
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Blackmun, And Mr. Justice Rehnquist
Justice Powell dissented on the ground that the Due Process Clause does not require a hearing before a short-term suspension of up to ten days.26 He argued that the interest of the student in avoiding a brief suspension is outweighed by the interest of the school in maintaining order and discipline.27 The procedures required by the majority will burden school administrators and interfere with the educational process.28
Powell would have reversed the judgment of the District Court.29 The Court's decision intrudes upon the traditional authority of the states and local school boards to maintain order and discipline in the public schools.30
Whether Ohio students possess protected property interests in continued public education that require procedural safeguards before short-term suspension?31
Protected interests in property are created by state statutes or rules entitling the citizen to benefits such as continued public education.32 Once a state extends the right to an education to all its citizens, it may not withdraw that right on grounds of misconduct without fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred.33
Yes. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 3313.48 and 3313.64 direct local authorities to provide a free education to all residents between five and 21 years of age.34 A compulsory-attendance law requires attendance for a school year of not less than 32 weeks.35
The nine students were suspended without any hearing to determine the facts underlying the charges of misconduct.36 Having chosen to extend the right to an education, Ohio may not withdraw it on grounds of misconduct without fundamentally fair procedures.37
Ohio students possess protected property interests in continued public education that require procedural safeguards before short-term suspension.38
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Blackmun, And Mr. Justice Rehnquist
Justice Powell dissented on the ground that a student's interest in education is not infringed by a suspension within the limited period prescribed by Ohio law.39 He contended that the very legislation which defines the dimension of the student's entitlement also authorizes suspension for up to ten days, so the right is not unqualified.40 A deprivation of not more than ten days does not assume constitutional dimensions.41
Powell emphasized that the Ohio statute that creates the right to a free education also explicitly authorizes a principal to suspend a student for as much as 10 days.42
Whether students possess protected liberty interests in reputation that require procedural safeguards before short-term suspension?43
The Due Process Clause forbids arbitrary deprivations of liberty where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him.44 School suspensions based on charges of misconduct 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.45
Yes. The suspensions were imposed based on charges of misconduct that, if sustained and recorded, could seriously damage the students' standing with their fellow pupils and their teachers.46 The District Court found that a suspension is a serious event in the life of the suspended child.47 The claimed right of the State to determine unilaterally and without process whether that misconduct has occurred collides with the requirements of the Constitution.48
Students possess protected liberty interests in reputation that require procedural safeguards before short-term suspension.49
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Blackmun, And Mr. Justice Rehnquist
Justice Powell dissented on the ground that there is no factual showing of any reputational damage to the appellees.50 He argued that the Court's reliance on a perceived deprivation of liberty resulting from any suspension lacks factual support in the record.51 A brief suspension is of less serious consequence to the reputation of a teenage student than the injury considered in prior cases such as Board of Regents v. Roth.52
Powell underscored the need for serious damage to reputation before constitutional protections attach.53
Whether the minimum notice and hearing procedures that satisfy due process for suspensions of ten days or less include oral or written notice of the charges and an opportunity to present the student's side of the story?54
Due process requires at a minimum that students facing suspension be given oral or written notice of the charges against them.55 If they deny them, they must receive an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present their side of the story.56 The hearing may occur immediately in most cases or within a reasonable time in emergency situations.57
Yes. The students are entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against them.58 If they deny them, they must receive an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present their side of the story. The hearing need not be a full adversarial proceeding.59 In most cases the hearing may be held immediately after the alleged misconduct, and in cases of emergency the hearing may be held within a reasonable time after the suspension.60
The minimum notice and hearing procedures that satisfy due process for suspensions of ten days or less include oral or written notice of the charges and an opportunity to present the student's side of the story.61