Goss Vs Lopez Case Study

Case Study

Citation:
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. (1975).

Topic:
The topic in the case of Goss v. Lopez is in regards to the amount of due processing required to students in the case of suspensions. This relates to the rights guaranteed through the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. The topic here focuses on the question of whether or not the right of due process could apply to education in the public school setting at the time of the case in 1974. Therefore, did the principal deny the students their rights by not allowing due process to occur before the suspensions were given?

Relief Sought:
In the case of Goss v. Lopez, the relief that was sought was a declaration from the state of Ohio that such suspensions would be considered

unconstitutional. In addition, the students and their parents wanted these suspensions to be removed from students records due the fact that due process was not used. If students were found to not have received their due process as it pertains to the law than the dropping of the suspensions from their files was imperative.

Issue(s):
This case revolved around a student named Dwight Lopez as well as other students in public schools in Ohio. Due to misconduct these students were given a 10 day suspension without due processing. This meant that students were not given notice or an opportunity to be heard regarding their specific situation. The issue here is whether or not the students should have been provided with due processing based upon the fourteenth amendment.

Facts:
This incident occurred when several students were given a 10 day suspensions because of misconduct.

Students were not provided with due processing before they were given their 10 day suspensions. Due to the students not receiving a hearing or a change to speak on their own behalf a class-action suit was filed which claimed that their fourteenth amendment rights had been violated. This would require prior notice and an opportunity to be heard for each of the students. At the time the Ohio law did not require principals to hold hearings for students before giving suspensions. The defendant of this case was listed as Norval Goss who was the director of pupil personnel for the Columbus school

district.

Finding of the Trial Court:
The district court, Twenty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany, in this case declared that the defendants were in fact denied due process of law which was a violation of their fourteenth amendment rights. This was decided based upon the fact that the students were suspended without a hearing prior to the suspension or even within a reasonable time after the suspension had been given. The district court also stated that due process could not be taken away due to the use of misconduct. Instead, the use of due processing must be used due to the fourteenth amendment.

Finding of the Appellate Court:
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio also upheld the due process law held by the fourteenth amendment.

According to this court, the right to an education is given to all people according to Ohio law between the ages of 6 and 21. Ohio could not withdraw this right on the grounds of misconduct when procedures were not provided to fairly support the students right to their education through due processing. Therefore, the right of due processing could not be taken away and the court sided with the students.
It was after this court case that the school district then took the case to the Supreme Court. Justice Byron White provided the decision of the court. It was stated that this case involved the understanding of the Due Process Clause and how an Ohio stateute which allowed for principals in an Ohio school to suspend a student for up to 10 days without any provisions for hearing the student’s case before or after the suspension. The Supreme Court agreed with the district court in that the students have a right to public education. Therefore school authorities could not take away from them without the ability to present their case, provide evidence, and provide their side of the case before or within a certain amount of time of their suspension. In the end, the court found that the suspensions involved in this case did not allow for hearing before or after the suspension. Therefore, each suspension was invalid and could

not be upheld. The defendants in this specific case won the case over the school district.

Reasoning:
In the case of Goss v. Lopez the reason for the decision came down to the United States Constitution and the fourteenth amendment. Students have the right of property and liberty therefore, when their property, in this case their education, is taken away they have the right to due processing. Ohio law could not take away this right because the right of property is given by the constitution and therefore, the due process clause had to be taken into account before suspending students.

Discussion and Reflections:
The case of Goss v. Lopez was an important case in terms of student discipline. As it has been made clear through this case the right to an education is a property right that all students are given through the law. Therefore, if this right is to be taken away students are required to be provided with due process. This case allowed for the discussion to occur as to when and how much due processing was necessary in various cases of education. For example, in cases of suspension that are 10 days of less schools and administrators are required to provide students with information notice. This still allows students to go through due process but at a level specific to the crime.
I believe that this case continues to have ramifications in the world today. Administrators are held accountable and must ensure that they are following the due process steps to ensure the rights of education for all students. I find that some principals want to skip certain steps and this does not support learning for all students. By having this case as the ground work for future cases the federal government is ensuring that all students earn the right of free public education with the concept of due processing.