By not providing a formal or informal hearing for the students explaining the reasons for suspension, and not offering the students an opportunity to present their contravening opinion, did the school violate the fourteenth amendment's procedural due process requirements? Reasoning

The Court held in a five- four majority opinion that the school district had violated the student's rights by suspending them without proper notice or hearing. The Court's logic in this decision is particularly interesting as it speaks to the student's "property and liberty interests that qualify for protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" (Cornell University Law School- Goss v. Lopez. N.D.). The property concern is of paramount importance in the decision as the court found that "because Ohio had chosen to extend the right to an education to...

N.D.). The decision then designates an education as a fundamental property right which must be protected by fair and proper procedural due process.
Holding

As set above, the Court held that the student's property and liberty interests had not been protected under the "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" (Cornell University Law School- Goss v. Lopez. N.D.). In order to properly provide procedural due process the school would necessarily ensure that the "student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his version" (Cornell University Law School-