Paper Example on Goss v. Lopez Case

Parties Involved In the Case

The Goss v. Lopez case is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1975. The case had to do with the due process rights that are enjoyed by students in most public schools. It involved the plaintiff Dwight Lopez and eight other students from the central high school who were suspended for misconduct for ten days. The defendant was Norval Goss, who was an administrator and the director of personnel in Columbus, Ohio public school system (CPSS). The chief lawyer for the defendant was Thomas Bustin while the chief lawyer for the plaintiff was Peter Roos. The case was based on the grounds of their suspension that was done without hearing; thus, it violated their procedural due process rights given under the fourteen amendments. The plaintiffs sued to the district court, which was heard by nine judges where the court granted the Lopez relief, and Gross appealed the case at the Supreme Court.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Date and Place Where the Case Was Tried

The case was first argued on 16 October 1974 before the Supreme Court in the United States, and it was then decided on 22 January 1975 by nine justices. After the hearing decision was made, the case was then appealed to the Supreme Court by the school system and the school board.

Facts of the Case

The United States passed the fourteen amendments, which contained the due process clause, requires the country to offer reasonable hearing and other legal procedures before deprivation of an individual of property, liberty, or life. The Fourteenth Amendment due process requires that any legal proceeding should be in accordance with the principles and the rules of the established system with the aim of protecting private rights. The government should only exercise its powers as the law permits and recognize the individual rights which are to be protected. Besides, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school students because where a federal and the state law collide the constitution requires the federal law to take precedence. As such, the Fourteenth Amendment's due process has to be respected by the Ohio court in which the students should have been given a just hearing. The case of Goss and Lopez replied to the due process clause of the fourteen amendments since the school administrators acted against the due process and suspended nine students from the school for ten days without any hearing, meaning the students never had an opportunity to defend themselves against the accusations on them (Wilkinson III, 1975). Seemingly, the schools empowered the administrator to suspend the students for ten days or even expel them.

Markedly, the law also requires the parents of the students to be notified of the action of the children within 24 hours to be given the reason. Further, if students are expelled, they could appeal to the education board, but it gave no such allowances in case of suspension. The appellee students decided to bring a course action against their school administrator pursuing an affirmation that the law from the school that permits such suspensions to students was against the law. The students also wanted a declaration on order directing the officials to eradicate the mentions to the suspension from their records (Hollis, 2016). Based on the above, the students decided to take the matter to the court where they demanded their rights as stated in the due process. The case was first tried in the federal district court where it was ruled in favor of the students where it was found that the rights of the students had been violated. The school system and their lawyers went ahead and appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

Legal Question and Issues Raised

The case involved three issues that were raised.

The first issue was concerning whether or not the Ohio law violated the due process that is protected by the fourteen amendments to the constitution of the United States. The fourteen-amendment state "No State shall... deprive any person of li/e, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." (Baer, 2018)

The second issue raised in the case is whether the Ohio law that requires the students to be suspended for ten days or expelled on the basis of any misconduct was unconstitutional.

The third issue was whether the Ohio law should be ruled unconstitutional and the case ruled in favor of the students.

The Court's Decision

The legal issues were adequately addressed by the district court where it claimed that the Ohio law was unconstitutional based on the fourteen amendments to the United States Constitution. The court found the school had violated the fourteen amendment rights to due process. The court decision was in favor of the schoolchildren, and it decided that the Ohio law was unconstitutional since it allowed school administrators to suspend students less than or 10 days or to dismiss them without giving notice and trial. Based the due process, the Federal Court ruled that before the suspension is given to a student, they should be given "oral or written notice of the charges against him, and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story," (Strope, 1982)

Dissenting Opinion

A disagreement that argued the Ohio state law had only allowed the right to education for students and not the right to be educated deprived of discipline. The dissenting voice on the court was that of Lewis Powell who resisted the court's decision that suspension was adequate to prompt the due process in practice. Similarly, he contended that the defenses that are offered by the Ohio state's law were appropriate. Further, he criticized the interference with operations of the public schools and stated that minors should be treated differently under the law.

Education Implications

The due process also applies to public schools since students have rights to the due process. It is evident that the Ohio law in public schools did not allow students to be heard in case of suspensions; hence, the students are deprived of their rights. However, the schools may use their standard processes in dealing with misconduct by schoolchildren (Essex, 2016). The educational implication was that the suspensions on students might have lost lifetime chances and educational opportunities during the period of their suspension.

Personal Views

I believe that the Supreme Court was correct since it was aimed at fighting the rights of students in public schools in support that the due process might be applied in the education sector. I found it pleasing that the Supreme Court has seen the Ohio laws to be unconstitutional and oppressive to the students.

References

Baer, J. A. (2018). Equality under the constitution: reclaiming the fourteenth amendment. Cornell University Press.Essex, N. (2016). School law and public schools. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education.

Hollis, B. M. (2016). Due Process in Higher Education: A Study of Due Process concerning Greek Life Affairs(Doctoral dissertation).

Strope, J. L. (1982). The impact of the United States Supreme Court on the education policies of the States with particular emphasis on Goss v. Lopez in Nebraska. Ann Arbor, Mich: University Microfilms International.

Wilkinson III, J. H. (1975). Goss v. Lopez: The Supreme Court as School Superintendent. The Supreme Court Review, 1975, 25-75.