Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Goss v. Lopez

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureProcedural Due ProcessPublic EducationStudent SuspensionsDue Process ClauseFourteenth Amendmentpublic school studentsshort suspension

Facts

Ohio law provided free public education and authorized principals to suspend students for up to 10 days for misconduct, but it provided no hearing procedure for suspended students. The named student plaintiffs were suspended for up to 10 days without a hearing either before suspension or within a reasonable time afterward, and some were never told the factual basis for the accusations in any meaningful hearing setting. Several suspensions arose during a period of student unrest, including incidents involving alleged disruption, refusal to obey orders, and participation in disturbances. The district court found that each suspension occurred without the required process and ordered school records expunged.

Issue

Whether public school students who are suspended for 10 days or less have interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. If so, what minimum process is constitutionally required before or promptly after such a short suspension is imposed?

Rule

When a State provides students a legitimate entitlement to a public education and a suspension for misconduct also threatens their liberty interest in reputation, the Due Process Clause applies to suspensions of 10 days or less. At minimum, the student must receive oral or written notice of the charges and, if the student denies them, an explanation of the evidence and an opportunity to present the student's side of the story; notice and hearing generally should precede removal, except that students posing a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting the academic process may be removed immediately, with notice and hearing to follow as soon as practicable.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nevada law guarantees all residents ages 6 to 18 a free public education and requires attendance. At a public middle school in Reno, Principal Dana Morrow suspended Leo Santos for three days for alleged cheating without telling him the charge or giving him any chance to respond.

If Leo brings a procedural due process claim, which argument most strongly supports him under the governing rule?

Explanation. The rule is that when state law provides students a legitimate entitlement to public education, that state-created property interest is protected by the Due Process Clause. A short suspension for misconduct therefore cannot be imposed without minimum procedures. The case did not rest on education being a freestanding federal constitutional right, did not require full trial-type procedures for short suspensions, and specifically held that suspensions of 10 days or less still trigger some due process.