Due

Process
Michael Miller

Learning Targets

I can define Due Process.

I can evaluate the application of due process to

one or more Supreme Court cases.

I can apply due process to a case study.

Powdered Aspirin

Students are bringing powdered aspirin to school and huffing the

powder in the restroom.

You ask teachers to keep a closer eye on students, which led a

teacher to see a student (Lasiandra Davis) go into the restroom with
a brown paper bag in her hand.

A female teacher then went into the restroom and found the bag in
the trash can under some paper towels (only Lasiandra was in the
restroom).

You immediately begin an investigation with the help of teachers,

which last all afternoon, interrupting several classes and causing
several students to miss significant time.

You call Lasiandra to your office, she denies bringing the powdered
aspirin to school and you give her a 5 Day Suspension for the
disrupting instruction.

Powdered Aspirin

Reflect on the details of this scenario and think

about what this school/principal did right and what
was done wrong.

Discuss your reflection with a partner.

Meet with another group of two and share your

partner responses.

124

Powdered Aspirin

Students are bringing powdered aspirin to school and huffing the

powder in the restroom.

You ask teachers to keep a closer eye on students, which led a

teacher to see a student (Lasiandra Davis) go into the restroom with
a brown paper bag in her hand.

A female teacher then went into the restroom and found the bag in
the trash can under some paper towels (only Lasiandra was in the
restroom).

You immediately begin an investigation with the help of teachers,

which last all afternoon, interrupting several classes and causing
several students to miss significant time.

You call Lasiandra to your office, she denies bringing the powdered
aspirin to school and you give her a 5 Day Suspension for the
disrupting instruction.

What is Due
Process?

A legal principle that considers that manner of fair

and adequate procedures for making equitable and
fair decisions.

Procedural due process: considers the minimum

sequence of steps taken by a school official in
reaching a decision, usually defend as notice and the
right to a fair hearing.

Substantive due process: considers the fairness of

a decision and involves such concepts as adequate
notice, consistency of standards, how evidence was
collected and applied to the decision, the rationality of
the decision, and the nexus of the decision with a
legitimate educational purpose.

Minor infractions of
school rules
(detention, ISS, etc.)

Due process not

required, but may be
good practice
depending on
situation.
Follow
campus/district
parent/guardian
notification policy.

Procedu
re

Infraction of school
rules may result in
suspension/expulsio
n
Students not
danger to others:
Complete due
process before
deciding on
removal
(notice/evidence/st
udent opportunity
to present his/her
side).

Decision Not to
Suspend

Formal due
process required:
Follow all district
policy/state law.

Student a danger to
others: Immediate
removal possible.
Complete due
process as soon as
practical, but
before final
decision is made.
Decision to suspend
10 days or less:
Follow district
notification policy.
Consider age/sex of
student.

Expulsion possible.

Substantive Due
Process

Does the rule or policy provide adequate notice of

what conduct is prohibited?

Does the rule or policy serve a legitimate educational

policy?

Is the consequence reasonably (or rationally) connect

to the offense?

Is the rule or policy applied equitably?

Goss v. Lopez
419 U.S. 565

ISSUE: Students in the Columbus Public School

System (1975) were denied due process of law when
they were temporarily suspended from their high
schools without a hearing either prior to suspension or
within a reasonable time after the incident.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS:

Nine appellees, say they were suspended for up to 10

days without a hearing.

Complaint said the statue 3313.66 was unconstitutional

because it denied students their right to an education

Goss v. Lopez
419 U.S. 565

minimum requirements of notice and a hearing prior to

suspension, except in emergency situations.

Appellants argued that a 10 day suspension was not severe

or grievous

Due Process Clause will not shield him from suspensions

properly imposed, but it disserves both his interest and the
interest of the State if his suspension is in fact unwarranted.

Suspension is considered not only to be a necessary tool to

maintain order but a valuable educational device.

Do you agree with the appellants that a 10 day

suspension is not severe or grievous? Why or why not?
Turn and Talk

Goss v. Lopez
419 U.S. 565

RULING: District court ruled that the suspensions were

invalid and the statue unconstitutional. The Supreme Court
affirmed.

CONCUSION: Expelled students (and their parents) had the

right to a hearing before the school board, but students
expelled for 10 days or less did not have this same right.

The court ruled that students have a property and liberty

interest that qualifies them for due process protection
(Stader, 2013).

Property interest right to a free and public education

Liberty interest students reputation, integrity

Students must be given oral and written notice of charges.

Student has an opportunity to have their side of the story heard.

Board of Regents v.
Roth

408 U.S. 564

ISSUE: David Roth was hired as a assistant professor of

political science at Wisconsin State University Oshkosh.
Informed by the February 1 deadline (1969) that he would
not be rehired the next year. He did not have tenure. He
was given no reason for why he would not be rehired, nor
was he given an opportunity to have a hearing.

Do you believe David Roth has due process rights

that should allow him to (1) be notified as to the
reason why he is not being rehired and (2) grant
him a hearing to tell his side of the story?
(Turn and Talk with a new partner)

Board of Regents v.
Roth

408
U.S.
564
ANALYSIS OF FACTS:

Roth attacked the Board of Regents decision on both

substance and procedure.

District Court granted summary judgment for the

respondent on the procedural issue; ordered the
University officials to provide him with a reason and a
hearing.

Court of Appeals affirmed

Supreme Court disagrees; the range of interest protected

by procedural due process is not infinite.

No suggestion whatever that the respondents good

name, reputation, honor or integrity is at stake.

Board of Regents v.
Roth

408
U.S.
564
RULING: The Supreme Court reversed the case.

CONCUSION: REVERSED

University did not provided for contract renewal or

guarantee employment after June 30.

Roth was notified before the February 1 deadline.

Roths liberty interest was not at threat.

Perry v. Sindermann
408 U.S. 593

ISSUE: Robert Sindermann taught several years, but on

one-year employment contracts. He did not have tenure.
Contract was terminated and decision not to rehire him
was made. No official statement or an opportunity for a
hearing were given. He argued that this violated his
Fourteenth Amendments guarantee to procedural due
process.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS:

District Court granted summary with the board since he

did not have tenure.

Court of Appeals reversed this decision guaranteed

procedural due process if he could show that he had an
expectancy of re-employment.

Perry v. Sindermann
408 U.S. 593

ANALYSIS OF FACTS:

Supreme Court used Board of Regents v. Roth to show that the

Constitution does not require opportunity for a hearing before the
nonrenewal of a nontenured teachers contract, unless he can show
that the decision not to rehired him somehow deprived him of an
interest in liberty or that he had a property interest in continued
employment, despite the lack of tenure.

RULING: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals;

affirmed the District Court.

CONCUSION: REVERSED

Disagree with the Court of Appeals that subjective expectancy is

protected by procedural due process.

Agree with the Court of Appeals that the respondent must be given
an opportunity to prove the legitimacy of his claim of such
entitlement.

Ingraham v. Wright
430 U.S. 651

ISSUE: whether paddling of students as a means of

maintaining school discipline constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment and to what extent the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment requires prior notice and
an opportunity to be heard.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS:

Statue in effect authorized limited corporal punishment by

negative inference.

Teachers may impose reasonable but not excessive force to

discipline a child..

The Eighth Amendment does not apply to the paddling of

children as a means of maintaining discipline..

Ingraham v. Wright
430 U.S. 651

ANALYSIS OF FACTS:

Range of interests protected by procedural due process

is not infinite Board of Regents v. Roth

RULING: Due Process Clause does not require notice

and a hearing prior to imposition of corporal
punishment in the public schools; practice is
authorized and limited by the common law.

CONCUSION: Case was affirmed.

Corporal punishment is allowed in Florida, but is under

common-law and a child has a right to not be subjected
to excessive corporal punishment.