Goss Vs. Lopez: Case Study

The majority opinion says that the schools did not have the right to suspend the students

In closing, Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black both give valid testimony for their side of the argument; however, Fortas’ profusion of cited evidence outweighs Black’s mainly opinionated case. And even though this may seem like just another court case to be cited one day, it can go a long way in protecting students’

The suspensions without hearing violate the students' Due Process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The due process clause of the fourteen amendment provides procedural protections, such as notice and a hearing before termination of entitlements.

Seven years later, the Supreme Court, in Ewing, revisited the question of whether a university student has a property interest in his education. In Ewing, the University of Michigan dismissed a student for failing an

The 3 teenagers ended up filing a Civil Rights lawsuit in federal court through their fathers, asking the court to issue an injunction that would bar the school system from further disciplining students in the same situation as well nominal damages. The district court sided with the school board, deciding that the school’s fear of this protest causing disruptions of school discipline was within reason. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling on an evenly divided vote. The students ended up bringing their case to the Supreme Court after that.

“Ultimately, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the school’s search of T.L.O.’s purse was constitutional.” (Lannacci 2016). This essay will briefly examine the up till today open question that can never really be given a definite answer until applied in each case- “the applicability of the exclusionary rule in juvenile delinquency or criminal proceedings when the evidence has been seized in a school, by a school official, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” (Stoddard 2011).

In 1974, Dwight Lopez and eight students were suspended for 10 days on behalf of destroying school property and disrupting the learning environment at Central High School in Columbus, Ohio. Lopez testified he was a bystander and he was innocent. In addition, Lopez testified approximately 75 other students were suspended as well. Lopez claimed his suspension without a hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. During this action, the principals did not perform hearings for none of the affected students before ordering the suspensions. Due to the students not given a hearing, the principals’ actions were challenged and a class-action suit was filed asking for declaratory and injunctive

Perform a search in the University Library databases and locate four school-related court cases (with outcomes decided), two which involve educators as defendants and two which involve students as defendants. Fill in the table below. When you give your informed opinion, state and discuss whether you agree or disagree with the outcome. Base your opinion on legal and ethical standards as discussed in Ch. 9 of the text. If you do not agree with the outcome, explain what would have been just. Base your explanation upon the rights and responsibilities of those involved. Cite your sources in APA format below the table.

This Amicus Brief is on behalf of the Bristol School District. Suzie and her boyfriend Cyrus are both students at a high school in Bristol, Virginia. Suzie sent inappropriate photos of herself to her boyfriend, Cyrus, but shortly after that their relationship soured. Cyrus forwarded some of the photos to upperclassmen in the school. Suzie and her parents were upset with Cyrus and demanded the principal take action. The principal confronted Cyrus, but he denied the allegations. Principal Sheevers told the school security guard to frisk Cyrus for his phone, but the security guard was not able to find Cyrus’s phone. Principal Sheevers proceeded to Cyrus’s locker and opened it and found his cell phone. Principal Sheevers found the photos on Cyrus’s phone and suspended him for two weeks. Cyrus sued the school for accusing the school of violating his fourth amendment. The search of Cyrus’s cell phone by the school principal was not a violation of his

The petition alleges that the preventable death of the daughters of Ms. Gonzales and the damage they suffered violate her rights to life and to the safety of the person enshrined in Article I, her right to privacy and family life provided in article V, his right to protection of the family, provided in article VI, his right to protection of motherhood and childhood, in accordance with article VII and his right to the inviolability of the home, provided in article IX of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter, "the American Declaration"). The petitioners add that the fact that the United States did not investigate Ms. González's complaint or provide her with a remedy violates her right to justice, enshrined in Article XVIII, as well as her right to obtain a quick decision from the courts. authorities, provided for in Article XXIV. Finally, the petition maintains that the fact that the United States did not ensure the substantive rights provided for in the articles listed violates Ms. Gonzales' right to equality, as provided in Article II. In response to the petition, the State argues that the petitioners' complaints are inadmissible because the alleged victim did not exhaust domestic

The California Superintendent of Public Instruction was the petitioner in this case. Honig was seeking permission from the court to remove students from the school setting who displayed violent behaviors without following the procedural safeguards outlined in the Education Handicapped Act (EHA). The EHA (now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA) requires schools receiving federal funding to provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for all students with disabilities (Essex, 2012). Council for Honig was hoping the court would grant a “dangerousness exception” to the “stay put” rule. Thus, giving schools latitude in suspending and expelling students with disabilities who exhibit serious disruptive behavior. The respondents were two students from the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) was identified as being emotionally disturbed and were suspended based on their persistent and aggressive behaviors. In both cases the students were suspended and/or recommended for expulsion by the school district without a hearing. The first respondent “John Doe” had been suspended multiple times for serious physical violence, such as choking a peer. The second respondent, “Jack Smith” schedule was reduced to half days due to his

Due process is the legal requirement of anyone to be treated fairly by others in an authoritative position as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. This applies to everything including schools. As a student, I agree that some may feel disrespected by the schools policies and administration. Students rights issues have evolved over the years with the help of many court cases throughout the late 70’s into the early 2000’s, but can schools treat students unfairly according to the law?

In this situation Billy is being deprived of his property. He is now being deprived of his free access to a public education. This expulsion can also effect Billy’s record. So there may deprivation of liberty rights as well. This expulsion may limit his future opportunities. In this situation I would advise the parents that they need written notice of the transgressions that have taken place, there may be a need for an investigation into the facts and circumstances of the situation, and a review

Zero Tolerance Policy of Education in America In Bedford, Texas, a 16-year-old honor student was expelled after a

Instead of suspending students, the school should be teaching or let the student study or do homework instead of doing nothing to better their knowledge. If a student is being punished for their actions, then they should have a punishment that benefits their needs.