Due process rights in school suspensions and the Goss v. Lopez decision

¶ … Lopez

In the constitutional realm of the individual and their inalienable rights, perhaps no concept is more critical to the protection of liberty than the fifth and fourteenth amendments, and the safeguard provided that "no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (FindLaw- CaseLaw- Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. N.D.), at the national or state level. At the heart of the discussion on due process of law is the bifurcation between procedural due process and substantive due process. The former indicates the "central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures" (Cornell University Law School- Due Process. N.D.). The latter "prohibits the government from infringing on fundamental constitutional liberties" (the Free Legal Dictionary. N.D.). It is in this context of due process that the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Goss v. Lopez.

Background

The case involves ten Ohio "high school students, who had been suspended from school for misconduct for up to ten days without a hearing" (Cornell University Law School- Goss v. Lopez. N.D.). The students brought suit in federal district court on the grounds that "the Ohio statute permitting such suspensions was unconstitutional" (Cornell University Law School- Goss v. Lopez. N.D.) because proper due process was not conducted. The federal court held that the school district had indeed "denied due process of law in violation of the fourteenth amendment because they were suspended without hearing prior to suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter" (Cornell University Law School- Goss v. Lopez. N.D.). The Supreme Court then heard the case on appeal to determine if in fact the students had been deprived of their due process rights under the fourteenth amendment.

Issue

Of fundamental concern to the Court in Goss was the issue of procedural due process as opposed to substantive due process. 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?

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-