Goss v. Lopez
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Goss v. Lopez | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||
| Argued October 16, 1974 Decided January 22, 1975 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||||
| The students' suspension from school without a hearing violated the due process right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. | ||||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Associate Justices: William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist |
||||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||||
| Majority by: White Joined by: Douglas, Stewart, Brennan, Marshall Dissent by: Powell Joined by: Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist |
||||||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||||||
| U.S. Const. Amend. XIV | ||||||||||||
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1974) was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the school must conduct a hearing before subjecting a student to suspension. Suspending a student from school without holding an appropriate hearing was considered by the Court to be a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Contents |
[edit] History
9 named students, including a student named Dwight Lopez, were suspended from attending school for 10 days for destroying school property and disrupting the learning environment. In fact, Lopez testified that at least 75 other students were also suspended from his school on the same day. [1] At that time, Ohio state law said that schools had the right to suspend problem students without a hearing. A three-judge District Court struck down the law, saying that it violated the students' right to due process of law. The District Court held that:
| “ | Having chosen to extend the right to an education to people of appellees' class generally, Ohio may not withdraw that right on grounds of misconduct, absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred, and must recognize a student's legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause, and that may not be taken away for misconduct without observing minimum procedures required by that Clause. | ” |
|
—, pp. 573–74. |
||
Soon afterwards, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
[edit] Holding
Because Ohio decided to make education a right of the citizens, the state could not deprive citizens of that right without due process of law. In this case, due process would be served via a student disciplinary hearing. Since no such hearing occurred, the court concluded that the suspension violated the students' rights.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ Read and Teach — Goss v. Lopez (1975). Retrieved on 2007-05-26.
[edit] Further reading
- Ellis, Michael A. (1976). "Procedural Due Process after Goss v. Lopez". Duke Law Journal 1976 (2): 409–430. doi:.
