Ingraham v. Wright This Case

Ingraham v. Wright

This case came to the courts when a 14-year-old eighth grade student was severely punished with a paddle in a junior high school in Florida in 1970; he suffered a hematoma and his parents sued the school, charging "cruel and unusual punishment." It should be noted that corporal punishment was legal in Florida -- and is currently legal in Florida, as it is in 20 other states -- at the time of this incident, but the lawsuit was brought due to the severity of the punishment and due to the fact that James Ingraham was forcibly held down by two assistants while the principal, Willie J. Wright, administered 20 sharp blows with the paddle.

The Case -- Why did the Court deny due process in this case?

According to the Cornell University Law School review of the case, the parents' suit was based on the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment." The Florida statute authorizes corporal punishment, and the school in question (Charles R. Drew Junior High School) has a policy that authorizes the principal to use a paddle on a student when a teacher reports he has violated school policies. The School Board specifies that the punishment is not to be "degrading or unduly severe," but the parents of James Ingraham believed that the punishment did indeed eclipse that directive.

The District Court in Florida "granted respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint," because that court found "no basis for constitutional relief" (Cornell, p. 1); the Court of Appeals affirmed what the District Court had found, e.g., that there was no constitutional basis for allowing the case to continue.

When the case got to the Supreme Court, there was evidence that "the paddling of petitioner was exceptionally harsh," but on a 5-4 vote, the Court held (1.) that the Eighth Amendment (this is the amendment that prohibits the dishing out of "cruel and unusual punishment") does not have an application to disciplinary corporal punishment in schools, according to Cornell Law School. The High Court went on to say that (1. a) the Eighth Amendment was "designed to protect those convicted of crime," and clearly James Ingraham was not convicted of a crime, he was found to be guilty of a violation of school rules.

The Court went on (1. b) to assert that using the Eighth Amendment to apply to an issue in a public school would amount to "wrenching " it from "its historical context" -- which is actually a safeguard against criminals. The plaintiffs had also used the Fourteenth Amendment to argue that James Ingraham was not given due process, but the High Court (2.) stated that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require notice and a hearing prior to delivering blows from a wooden paddle (corporal punishment) in a public school environment since that punishment is authorized by "common law" (Cornell Law School).