Goss v. Lopez
Goss v. Lopez, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1975, ruled that, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, public-school students facing suspensions are entitled to notice and a hearing.
The case centred on Dwight Lopez and eight other students from various public schools in Columbus, Ohio, who were suspended for up to 10 days for misconduct. None of the students had been given a hearing, and they subsequently filed a class-action suit, claiming a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process, which requires prior notice and an opportunity to be heard; Norval Goss, director of pupil personnel for the Columbus school district, was named as a respondent. A federal district court decided in favour of the students. It ruled that an Ohio law that allowed principals to suspend students for up to 10 days or to expel them without a prior hearing was unconstitutional.
On October 16, 1974, the case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. It held that, because Ohio had elected “to extend the right to an education,” the state could not rescind that right for disciplinary reasons without first following “fundamentally fair procedures” to ascertain if the misconduct had taken place. The court further explained that a student facing suspension has “property and liberty interests” that are protected by due process. When school officials suspend students, they potentially affect students’ future employment and education opportunities. For example, suspensions for misconduct on students’ records could harm their college admissions.
In determining what process was due, the court held that before a suspension of 10 days or less, the student should 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 side of the story.
The purpose of those procedures, according to the court, is to provide “rudimentary precautions against unfair or mistaken findings of misconduct.” In its ruling, the court noted that it did not require any delay between the informal notice and the hearing, which usually would consist of a discussion of the alleged misconduct with the student, who would have an opportunity to present his or her version of the facts before the disciplinarian ruled on the case. Although a hearing would usually be required before suspension, the court allowed students to be removed immediately when they posed “a continuing danger to persons or property” or an ongoing threat of disruption. In such cases, the notice and hearing would follow as soon as was feasible.
Writing the majority opinion, Justice Byron R. White emphasized the limited procedures that were required before a short-term suspension. In such cases, the court does not require that students have a right to a lawyer, to confront and cross-examine witnesses against them, or to call witnesses on their behalf. On the other hand, after listening to the students’ versions of events, disciplinarians may decide that they should call the accusers and witnesses to make more-informed decisions.
