Goss v.

Lopez
KRISTIN DELUCA
EA 7780 – DR. GREEN
Background
Information
• Argued: 1974
• Decided: 1975
• Appellees: Dwight Lopez and 8 other
students
• Defendants: Norval Goss, Director of
Pupil Personnel and other administrators
(Swem p. 2).
Background Information

Schools in Ohio were permitted to suspend or expel a student for misconduct, as long as the parents were informed of the
disciplinary action and the reason for discipline within 24 hours (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/419/565/#tab-
opinion-1951045).

At the time, neither Ohio law nor Columbus Public Schools’ administrative guidelines provided for any type of hearing in
connection with student suspension (Swem p. 2).

Nine Ohio public school students, including Dwight Lopez, who had been suspended from school for 10 days for misconduct
without a hearing, brought a class action against appellant school officials seeking a declaration that the Ohio statute
permitting such suspensions and an order to remove the suspensions from the students’ records
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/419/565 ).
 The students’ complaint alleged a violation of
their civil rights and sought a declarations that
the Ohio statute and the Columbus Public
Schools’ Administrative Code violated their
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

Background
Information They students also argued that the statute and
school’s disciplinary procedure deprived them
of their statutory right to an education
(property) and their reputation reflected in
school records (liberty) without due process of
law (Swem p. 2)
 A three-judge District Court was convened.

Lower Court The District Court declared that the plaintiffs were denied due process
of law because they were “suspended without hearing prior to
suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter.” The Court also
Ruling ruled that Ohio state law and the Columbus Public Schools
Administrative Code were unconstitutional (Swem p. 3)

The district court ordered Columbus school officials to remove the

suspensions from student records and to adopt “fair suspension
procedures” that included notice of charges and a hearing before a
student could be suspended or expelled.
Supreme Court Ruling

The school administrators appealed directly to the Supreme

Court.

Oral argument conducted on October 16, 1974.

5-4 decision was issued on January 22, 1975, affirming the

ruling of the three-judge District Court.
(Swem, p. 3)
 Nature of constitutional rights in a public-
school setting: 14th Amendment (Due Process
Clause) “protects the citizen against the state
itself and all of its creatures – Boards of
Education not excepted.” (Swem, p. 3)
Supreme Court
Explanation
“Young people (in a public school) do not shed
their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse
door.” (Swem, p. 3).
Supreme Court Explanation
The Supreme Court observed that a “10-day suspension is not de minimis… and may not be imposed in complete disregard of the Due Process Clause.”
(Swem, p.3)

The Court labeled a suspension of 10 days or less as a “short” suspension but noted that while a “short suspension is a far milder deprivation than expulsion,
[education] is perhaps the most important function of state and loval government; [therefore, even for short suspensions] neither the property interest in
education benefits temporarily denied nor the liberty interest in reputation is so insubstantial that suspensions may constitutionally be imposed by any
procedure the school chooses, no matter how arbitrary.” (Swem, p. 3)

Property interest: entitlement to a public education which is protected by Due Process Clause

Liberty interest: students’ reputation

Supreme Court Explanation

• Due process requires that students are give oral or written notice of
charges against them, and if denied, an explanation of the evidence
and opportunity to present their version prior to the removal from
school (unless it’s not feasible).
Impact of case on schools
STUDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS
PRIOR TO BEING ISSUED A SUSPENSION. DUE
PROCESS INCLUDES AN EXPLANATION OF THE
OFFENSE, EXPLANATION OF EVIDENCE, AND
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ACCUSED TO
RESPOND WITH THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY.
A FORMAL HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED FOR A
SUSPENSION THAT IS 10 DAYS OR LESS.
CERTAIN THAT THE STUDENT VIOLATED THE
EXCEPT IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, AN
ADMINISTRATOR WILL NOT SUSPEND THE
STUDENTS UNLESS THEY HAVE PROVIDED
THE STUDENT WITH NOTICE AND AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN. THE
ADMINISTRATOR MUST BE REASONABLY
STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT, AND THAT
SUSPENSION IS AN APPROPRIATE
CONSEQUENCE.
Impact of case on schools

• Although not required for short-term suspensions, an appeal process

provides an extra safeguard which may benefit the school.
• While the Goss v. Lopez court case ruling was limited to suspensions
of 10 days or less, it set the stage for courst to determine the
parameters of constitutional due process for longer suspensions or
expulsions.
References

Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Norval Goss et al., Appellants, v. Eileen Lopez et al. Retrieved
August 3, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/419/565.
Justia US Supreme Court. (n.d.). Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). Retrieved August 3, 2021,
from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/419/565/ #tab-opinionn-1951045.
Swem, L.L. (2017). Goss v. Lopez to Today: The Evolution of Student Discipline. National
School Boards Association. https://cdn-files.nsba.org/s3fs- public/08.%20Goss%20v.%20Lopez
%20to%20Today%20Paper.pdf.