Goss v. Lopez

Jake Farmer

Goss v. Lopez
This case happened in 1975 when a couple of students including D. Lopez were suspended for misconduct at school. The Ohio revised code allows a school principle to expel or suspend a student for up to 10 days. If a student is expelled he has the right to a hearing that could lead to his reinstatement. The Columbus public school did not give any of the Apelles the right to a hearing or. When the Columbus Public school did not give them their hearings they withdrawd the right to an education on the grounds of, misconduct absent fair procedures to determine if the misconduct has occurred .The majority provides students with a manner of protecting their rights to attend school. Making the administrators document the misconduct and give it to the parent. At this point it gives the student the decision to refuse the hearing or take it but, also gives the administrators the right to discipline the children as necessary to keep order in the school. When the school did this they just violated the students Due processing Rights. Federal court found that the students' rights had been violated. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The nine named appellees, each of whom alleged that he or she had been suspended from public high school in Columbus for up to 10 days without a hearing pursuant to § 3313.66, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1993 against the Columbus Board of Education and various administrators of the CPSS. The complaint sought a [p569] declaration that § 3313.66 was unconstitutional in that it permitted public school administrators to deprive plaintiffs of their rights to an education without a hearing of any kind, in violation of the procedural due process component of the Fourteenth Amendment. It also sought to enjoin the public school officials from issuing future suspensions pursuant to § 3313.66, and to require them to remove references to the past suspensions from the records of the students in question. [n3]
Argument #1: This brought a class action against the school officials saying allowing such a suspension was unconstitutional and an ordering to the officials to remove the references to the suspensions from the students' records.
Argument #2: the court should rule in favor of the state in this case since a law existed which allowed the school to suspend students for up to ten days without a hearing. The school and its administrators cannot give a hearing prior to suspension because of the lack of time. The school is concerned with the safety and order of the school an needs to be able to keep students who violate the rules out of school after suck a violation.
Argument #3: The court should rule with the students (lopez). By not providing the students with a hearing prior to their suspension they are being denied due process right so attend school and receive an education.