Student Rights and School Discipline: Key Supreme Court Cases

Introduction: Courts and Student Constitutional Rights

"From 1969 to 1975, amid increasing legal challenges to the regulation of student expression in school, the Court's rulings largely confirmed students' rights to various free expression and due process protections" (Arum & Preiss, 2009). The cases examined in this paper illustrate how the U.S. Supreme Court has navigated the tension between school authority and students' constitutional rights, a balance that continues to shift with each generation of litigation.

Due Process in Public Schools: Goss v. Lopez (1975)

In Goss et al. v. Lopez et al., the U.S. Supreme Court decided that public school students do have a right to due process. In the case, a student was expelled from the Ohio public schools without a hearing for being disorderly. The school contended that because the U.S. Constitution does not specify that every citizen is entitled to a free education at public expense, "the Due Process Clause does not protect against expulsions from the public school system" (Goss et al. v. Lopez, 1975).

However, the majority finding of the Court was that although there is no specifically delineated right to education under the Fourteenth Amendment, "this position misconceives the nature of the issue and is refuted by prior decisions. The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the State to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" (Goss et al. v. Lopez, 1975).

Such protected interests — including employment or the right to public education — are "not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined" through interpretation, while in this case "the appellees plainly had legitimate claims of entitlement to a public education" (Goss et al. v. Lopez, 1975). The Court's finding in favor of the expelled student seems essential not simply to protect the rights of students, but to protect the rights of citizens in general. Had the courts found otherwise, not only would students have been susceptible to expulsion without due process, but employers might also have argued that they were not required to offer due process to employees, given that employment is not technically life, liberty, or property.

Free Speech and Drug Messaging: Morse v. Frederick (2007)

In 2007, in Morse v. Frederick, a student was suspended for holding up a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a school event. The Court found in favor of the school, ruling that such expression was not protected speech. "Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days. She justified her actions by citing the school's policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs. Frederick sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil rights statute, alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech" (Morse v. Frederick, 2007, Oyez Project).

Originally, the Ninth Circuit Court found in favor of the student, citing Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which extended First Amendment protection to student speech except where the speech would cause a disturbance. In Tinker, a young woman wearing a black armband in protest of the Vietnam War had been suspended. However, the majority decision of the Court in Morse v. Frederick held that schools have a legitimate interest in discouraging drug use. Although "Frederick was punished for his message rather than for any disturbance," Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion held that while students retain some right to political speech while in school, this right does not extend to pro-drug messages that may undermine the school's important mission to discourage drug use (Morse v. Frederick, 2007, Oyez Project).

Conclusion: Balancing Authority and Student Rights

The Fourth Amendment has many exceptions, and the courts are continually negotiating the balance between an accused person's right to privacy and the right of public authorities — including law enforcement — to engage in searches. In this instance, when a school stands in a position of trust and the potential for psychological damage to the student is great, the Court's finding that Savana had a reasonable expectation of privacy seems warranted, unless there is an immediate risk of harm. Together, these cases reflect the ongoing judicial effort to define where school authority ends and students' fundamental constitutional rights begin.