Goss V. Lopez Case Analysis

In 1975, the United State Supreme Court held that state law could provide students a property interest in their education, but forty years later and courts remain uncertain of when such an interest exists. In Goss v. Lopez, the United States Supreme Court extended due process protections to a group of high school students in Ohio. The Court determined that Ohio state law provided the high school students a property interest in their continued enrollment at the school, and that such an interest was protected under the due process clause. The Goss decision came during a time when a due process revolution was happening in the United States. During this revolution, the Supreme Court recognized many new property interests in government benefits as the basis

The hallmark of a property interest is that the party “[has] a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Merely having an adverse effect is not sufficient to make something a property interest. Normally, something does not qualify as a property interest if the state has discretion over the entitlement. Courts determine discretion by looking to whether a benefit can only be removed for good cause. Property interests go beyond traditional types of property, such as land or goods, but instead can include a wide range of government benefits. For example, the Supreme Court has recognized property interests in welfare benefits, government employment, social security benefits, and licenses. Courts use a two-tiered system for determining property interests. First, as previously mentioned, courts determine whether state law provides a property interest, and second they determine whether the nature of the interest is such that it deserves constitutional protection. In summation, a plaintiff has a valid property interest if they can show state law provides them a entitlement that is of a nature that is protected by the due process