Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
When a public school wants to suspend or expel a student, it can’t act on a whim. It must follow specific procedures known as “due process of law.” These protections exist to ensure decisions are accurate and that students get to tell their side of the story before losing something as important as their education.
This guide explains your constitutional rights, how they apply to different types of punishment, special protections for students with disabilities, and practical steps to protect your rights during disciplinary proceedings.
Constitutional Foundation: The Fourteenth Amendment and Your Education
Your right to fair treatment during school discipline doesn’t come from school policy. It comes directly from the U.S. Constitution.
What Due Process Means
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This amendment, ratified in 1868, requires all levels of government to operate within legal bounds.
Due process promises two things. First, it guarantees legality – government must follow the law. This principle traces back to the Magna Carta in 13th-century England. Second, it promises fair procedure. It’s not enough for a public school to follow written rules. The school must also provide a fair process before taking away something significant from a student.
The Due Process Clause applies when a state acts against individuals on individual grounds. This means it governs how schools apply discipline rules to specific students, not how they create those rules.
Education as Protected Property
The Due Process Clause only kicks in when government tries to deprive someone of “life, liberty, or property.” While the Constitution doesn’t explicitly grant a federal right to public education, our system has made education a constitutionally protected interest.
All fifty states have passed laws requiring that public education be provided to children, typically within certain age ranges. By doing this, states create a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to education for their students.
The Supreme Court has established that such government-created entitlement qualifies as “property” under the Fourteenth Amendment. This was the central finding in the landmark 1975 case Goss v. Lopez. The Court ruled that because Ohio had chosen to provide education to its students, it couldn’t withdraw that right for misconduct without following “fundamentally fair procedures.”
Your right to due process in school discipline is a direct legal consequence of the state establishing a public school system. The state created the entitlement, and the Constitution requires the state to be fair before taking it away.
Liberty Interest at Stake
Disciplinary actions like suspension and expulsion also affect a student’s “liberty” interest, which the Fourteenth Amendment separately protects. The Supreme Court in Goss recognized that a disciplinary record isn’t trivial.
A suspension or expulsion can seriously damage a student’s reputation among peers and teachers. It can also affect their future. A misconduct record can interfere with opportunities for higher education, future employment, and military service.
The Court reasoned that when a state acts in a way that could damage someone’s reputation and limit future opportunities, it’s depriving them of liberty. Before a school can take such a step, it must provide due process to ensure the misconduct finding is accurate and fair.
Public vs. Private Schools: Why Rights Differ
The Fourteenth Amendment protects against government actions. Public schools are “state actors” because state and local governments establish, fund, and operate them. As arms of the state, they must follow Due Process Clause requirements.
Private schools, even those receiving some indirect government aid, are generally not state actors. Because they’re private entities, they don’t have to obey constitutional due process commands. This creates a weaker system of rights for private school students.
Rights in private schools are governed primarily by contract law. The student handbook, enrollment agreement, and school policies form a legally binding contract between the school and family. A private school must follow its own stated rules.
If a school’s handbook promises a hearing before expulsion but then expels without one, the family’s legal recourse is a breach of contract claim, not a constitutional lawsuit. This distinction is critical: the “rights” aren’t constitutional guarantees but are defined by documents the school itself wrote and controls.
A private school could theoretically offer minimal procedural protections in its handbook and still act within the law. This differs sharply from the constitutional floor that applies to all public institutions.
The Landmark Decision: Goss v. Lopez
For decades, the precise procedural rights of public school students remained unclear. That changed in 1975 with the Supreme Court decision in Goss v. Lopez, which established the constitutional minimum for due process in school discipline.
The Case
The case arose from student unrest in Columbus, Ohio public schools in 1971. Dwight Lopez and eight other students were suspended from various high schools for up to 10 days for alleged misconduct related to student demonstrations.
Ohio law at the time let school principals suspend students for up to 10 days without any hearing. The only requirement was notifying parents within 24 hours.
None of the suspended students got to hear the specific evidence against them or tell their side of the story. Believing this violated their constitutional rights, the students filed a class-action lawsuit against Norval Goss, a school administrator.
They argued they had been deprived of their property and liberty interests without due process of law. A federal court agreed, and the school system appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the students. Justice Byron White wrote that even a suspension of 10 days or less isn’t trivial and can be a “serious event in the life of the suspended child.”
The Court established that because the state had created an entitlement to education, it couldn’t take it away “on grounds of misconduct absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred.”
The ruling was a balancing act. The Court acknowledged the student’s significant interest in avoiding unfair or mistaken suspension and potential damage to their record. It also recognized the school’s need to maintain order without turning every disciplinary incident into a burdensome legal proceeding.
The dissenters argued the decision would impose judicial interference on school operations. The majority concluded that the risk of wrongful punishment was too high to permit summary suspensions without any process.
The result was a compromise: “rudimentary precautions” sufficient to guard against clear factual errors like mistaken identity, but informal enough to be practical for school administrators.
The Goss Minimums for Short-Term Suspension
The Court established three basic procedural requirements for any suspension of 10 days or fewer, often called the “Goss minimums”:
Notice: The student must receive notice of the charges. This can be oral or written, but it must clearly state what the student is accused of doing.
Explanation of Evidence: If the student denies the charges, school officials must explain the evidence they have against the student.
Opportunity to Be Heard: The student must get a chance to present their side of the story. This isn’t a formal trial but typically an informal discussion with the administrator handling the discipline.
The Court was also clear about what Goss doesn’t require for short-term suspensions. There’s no constitutional right to a lawyer, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, or to call your own witnesses for a brief suspension.
The Emergency Exception
The Court carved out one important exception. A school can remove a student immediately without a prior hearing if that student’s presence “poses a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting the academic process.”
In emergency situations, the required notice and informal hearing must be provided as soon as practicable after the removal.
How Your Rights Scale with Punishment Severity
A core principle of due process is that procedural protection increases with the magnitude of potential loss. Just as someone facing a traffic ticket gets fewer safeguards than someone on trial for murder, a student facing detention has fewer rights than one facing expulsion.
Minor Punishments
Minor disciplinary actions that don’t significantly affect a student’s educational property interest don’t trigger constitutional due process requirements. These include after-school detention, being moved to the back of the class, or in-school suspension where the student continues receiving instruction.
Short-Term Suspensions (10 Days or Less)
As established in Goss v. Lopez, these suspensions require “rudimentary” due process: an informal hearing including notice of charges, explanation of the school’s evidence, and opportunity for the student to present their side.
Long-Term Suspensions and Expulsions
When a student faces long-term suspension or permanent expulsion, the deprivation of property and liberty interests is far more severe. The Constitution requires a much more formal, trial-like hearing process.
While the Supreme Court hasn’t detailed every requirement for these hearings, lower courts and state laws have established general consensus on necessary components:
Formal Written Notice: The student and parents must receive detailed written notice well in advance of the hearing. This notice should specify charges, cite allegedly violated school rules, and summarize evidence and list witnesses the school intends to present.
Right to Representation: The student has the right to be represented by an attorney or, in some jurisdictions, a non-attorney advocate.
Right to Review Evidence: The student and their representative can inspect all documents, statements, and other evidence the school plans to use at the hearing.
Right to Confront and Cross-Examine Witnesses: Students can question their accusers and other witnesses testifying against them.
Right to Present Evidence: Students can present their own evidence, including documents and witness testimony.
Impartial Decision-Maker: The hearing must be conducted by a neutral person or panel. This can’t be the principal or administrator who initially recommended punishment.
Written Decision and Record: Students have the right to a written decision explaining the outcome and reasoning, based solely on evidence presented at the hearing. They also have the right to a hearing record (transcript or audio recording) essential for any appeal.
The reality sometimes falls short of these ideals. Because the Supreme Court left specifics for long-term suspensions to lower courts and states, some jurisdictions have allowed procedures that weaken protections, such as denying students the right to know their accusers’ identities.
Disproportionate Impact: Who Gets Disciplined
The importance of procedural safeguards is magnified by evidence that exclusionary discipline isn’t applied equally across all student populations. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and IDEA Data Center reveal stark disparities.
Racial Disparities
Black students are suspended and expelled at rates far higher than their white peers. Black students are five times as likely as white students to miss school days due to out-of-school suspensions. A CDC survey found that 23.1% of Black students reported experiencing unfair discipline, compared to 18.1% of white students.
Disability Disparities
Students with disabilities are also disproportionately affected. While making up just 12.6% of the student population, they account for 66% of students placed in seclusion and are more than twice as likely as their non-disabled peers to receive out-of-school suspension.
The combination of race and disability creates even greater risk. Black students with disabilities are three times as likely as white students with disabilities to be suspended and 2.5 times as likely to be expelled.
Gender Disparities
Boys are disciplined more frequently than girls. In preschool, boys account for 81% of out-of-school suspensions and 85% of expulsions. Among students with disabilities, over 80% of those suspended multiple times or expelled are boys.
These statistics transform due process from a purely legal discussion into a pressing social justice matter. The data raises questions about whether certain groups misbehave more or if the disciplinary system contains biases.
Regardless of the cause, these disproportionately disciplined groups are most frequently subjected to the disciplinary process. Ensuring this process is robust, fair, and unbiased is crucial for protecting individual rights and combating the documented school-to-prison pipeline.
Table 1: Due Process Rights: A Sliding Scale
| Right/Procedure | Short-Term Suspension (10 Days or Less) | Long-Term Suspension & Expulsion |
|---|---|---|
| Notice | Oral or written notice of charges | Formal, detailed written notice of charges, evidence, and witnesses, provided in advance |
| Hearing Type | Informal “give-and-take” discussion with an administrator | Formal, trial-like hearing before an impartial decision-maker |
| Right to Counsel | No constitutional right to an attorney | Yes, right to be represented by an attorney or advocate |
| Cross-Examination | No constitutional right to cross-examine witnesses | Yes, right to confront and question adverse witnesses |
| Presenting Evidence | Right to present student’s side of the story | Right to present evidence and call witnesses on one’s own behalf |
| Appeal Rights | Varies by state and district; not constitutionally required | Yes, right to a written decision and a record for appeal to a higher authority |
Special Protections: Students with Disabilities Under IDEA
All public school students have due process rights under the Constitution. Students eligible for special education services get an additional, powerful layer of protection through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
IDEA’s central promise is to provide every eligible child with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) – an educational program specially designed to meet their unique needs. Because disciplinary removals can interfere with a student’s ability to receive FAPE, IDEA establishes its own distinct rules and procedures.
The 10-Day Rule and “Change of Placement”
Under IDEA, a school can generally suspend a student with a disability for up to 10 school days in a single school year for code of conduct violations, just as it would for a non-disabled student.
The 10-day mark is a critical threshold. Any removal beyond 10 consecutive school days is automatically considered a “change of placement.” A series of shorter suspensions can also add up to a change of placement if they form a pattern, determined by looking at the length of each removal, total time removed, and similarity of behaviors leading to removals.
Once a disciplinary removal constitutes a change of placement, it triggers most of IDEA’s key protections. After the 10th day of removal in a school year, the school district must provide services to ensure the student continues receiving FAPE and can progress toward their IEP goals, even in a different setting.
Manifestation Determination Review: IDEA’s Core Protection
The most significant protection under IDEA is the Manifestation Determination Review (MDR). This meeting must be held within 10 school days of any school decision that would change a disabled student’s placement for disciplinary reasons.
The MDR fundamentally reframes the disciplinary question. While general due process asks, “Did the student break the rule?” the MDR asks, “Why did the student engage in this behavior?”
The MDR is conducted by the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) Team, which must include parents. The team reviews all relevant information in the student’s file, including the IEP, teacher observations, evaluation results, and parent-provided information.
The team must answer two specific questions:
- Was the conduct caused by, or did it have a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability?
- Was the conduct the direct result of the school’s failure to implement the student’s IEP?
The MDR outcome dictates the school’s next steps:
If either answer is YES (the behavior is a “manifestation”): The school is legally prohibited from proceeding with long-term suspension or expulsion (with very limited exceptions). The student must return to their previous placement.
The school’s obligation shifts from punishment to diagnosis. The IEP team must conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) to identify the behavior’s function and implement or revise a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) with proactive strategies to address and prevent the behavior.
If both answers are NO (the behavior is “not a manifestation”): The school may apply the same disciplinary procedures to the disabled student as it would to a non-disabled student, including long-term suspension or expulsion.
However, there’s a critical caveat: the school must continue providing services necessary for the student to receive FAPE and progress on IEP goals, even in an alternative educational setting.
Special Circumstances: The 45-Day Rule
IDEA includes an exception for certain serious offenses. School personnel may unilaterally move a student to an Interim Alternative Educational Setting (IAES) for up to 45 school days for offenses involving:
- Carrying or possessing a weapon at school or school function
- Knowingly possessing or using illegal drugs, or selling controlled substances at school
- Inflicting serious bodily injury upon another person
This 45-day removal can occur regardless of the MDR outcome.
The “Stay-Put” Provision
Perhaps the most powerful procedural tool for parents under IDEA is the “stay-put” provision. If a parent disagrees with the school’s MDR decision or any proposal to change their child’s educational placement (including disciplinary change), they can file for a due process hearing to challenge it.
When a hearing is requested, the “stay-put” rule kicks in. This requires that the student remain in their “current educational placement” while the dispute is being resolved.
This provision fundamentally alters the power dynamic. In typical disputes, the more powerful entity (the school) can make a change, and the parent bears the burden of fighting to reverse it. “Stay-put” freezes the status quo.
The school can’t move the student to a more restrictive or alternative setting while legal proceedings are ongoing, unless the parent agrees or the 45-day rule for serious offenses applies. This protects the child from potentially harmful placement changes during appeal and provides significant leverage for parents to negotiate with the school district.
Table 2: Protections Under IDEA vs. General Due Process
| Disciplinary Scenario/Right | General Due Process | Protections Under IDEA |
|---|---|---|
| Removal Beyond 10 Days | Requires a formal due process hearing | Triggers a “change of placement” and requires MDR within 10 school days |
| Core Question of Hearing | “Did the student violate the code of conduct?” | “Was the behavior a manifestation of the student’s disability or the school’s failure to implement the IEP?” |
| Outcome if Misconduct is Proven | Student can be suspended or expelled | If “manifestation,” student returns to placement with FBA/BIP. If not, student can be disciplined but must still receive FAPE |
| Services During Expulsion | Varies by state; may not be required | Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) must always be provided |
| Right During Appeal of Placement | Not applicable; placement change is typically immediate | “Stay-Put” right keeps the student in their last agreed-upon placement until dispute is resolved |
State Laws: Different Rules in Different Places
While the U.S. Constitution and federal laws like IDEA establish minimum protections for all public schools, they don’t set a ceiling. States can grant students additional protections through their own constitutions and statutes.
The full landscape of student due process rights is a complex mix of federal, state, and local school district policies. What’s permissible in one state may be explicitly forbidden in another.
California: Focus on Equity and Detailed Procedures
California has enacted some of the nation’s most detailed statutory requirements for student discipline, reflecting a policy shift toward reducing exclusionary practices.
The California Education Code mandates specific timelines for expulsion hearings: a hearing must occur within 30 school days of the incident, and the school board must render a decision within 10 school days after the hearing.
The law codifies numerous due process rights, including the right to formal written notice, the right to inspect all evidence, the right to confront and question witnesses, and the right to be represented by legal counsel or a non-attorney adviser.
Most notably, responding to data showing that subjective offenses disproportionately affect students of color and students with disabilities, California passed legislation that largely prohibits suspending or expelling students in all grades (K-12) for “willful defiance” or disruption.
Texas: Mandatory and Discretionary Actions Framework
Texas law takes a more prescriptive and punitive approach. The Texas Education Code outlines specific offenses for which a student shall be expelled (mandatory expulsion), such as bringing a firearm to school, and other offenses for which a student may be expelled (discretionary expulsion).
This framework gives schools less flexibility for the most serious offenses. However, the code also requires administrators to consider several mitigating factors before making final disciplinary decisions, including self-defense, the student’s intent, their disciplinary history, and whether a disability impaired their ability to understand the wrongfulness of their conduct.
Texas law also grants significant authority to classroom teachers, who can unilaterally remove a student from class for being “so unruly, disruptive or abusive” that it interferes with teaching. This removal automatically triggers a conference within three school days involving the parent, student, and administrator.
For expulsions, students have the right to a formal hearing where they can be represented by a parent or lawyer.
Florida: Strong Integration with Federal Disability Law
Florida’s approach is heavily influenced by its detailed implementation of federal disability law. While state statutes and local codes of conduct govern discipline for the general student population, procedures for students with disabilities are robustly defined.
Florida law closely tracks IDEA’s requirements, explicitly incorporating the 10-day rule for triggering a change of placement, the necessity of MDRs, and the absolute requirement to continue providing FAPE to an expelled student with a disability.
The state also provides a clear, expedited appeal process for students placed in an Interim Alternative Educational Setting (IAES) for serious offenses. Parents can challenge the placement, and a hearing must occur within 20 school days, with a decision rendered 10 days after that.
Table 3: State Law Snapshot: Expulsion Hearing Procedures (CA, TX, FL)
| Procedural Element | California | Texas | Florida |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basis for Expulsion | Broad list of offenses in Ed. Code § 48900 | Specific mandatory and discretionary offenses listed in Ed. Code § 37.007 | Based on violations of the local Student Code of Conduct; specific rules for students with disabilities |
| Hearing Timeline | Hearing must be held within 30 schooldays of the incident | Must occur within a “reasonable time” after an emergency removal; conference within 3 days of teacher removal | Varies by district; for students with disabilities, specific expedited timelines apply to IAES appeals |
| Right to Counsel | Yes, right to legal counsel or a non-attorney adviser is codified in statute | Yes, right to be represented by a parent, guardian, or lawyer | Yes, particularly for serious discipline and for students with disabilities navigating IDEA procedures |
| Key State Feature | Legislative ban on suspensions/expulsions for “willful defiance” to promote equity | Teacher-initiated removal authority and mandatory consideration of mitigating factors like intent and disability | Strong statutory and regulatory integration with federal IDEA protections, including MDRs and FAPE during expulsion |
What to Do if You’re Facing Suspension or Expulsion
Navigating the school discipline process can be intimidating. Understanding the legal principles and being prepared can empower students and parents to protect their rights effectively.
Stay Calm and Gather Information
In the initial moments after being notified of a disciplinary issue, remain calm and avoid making rash decisions or admissions.
Don’t admit guilt immediately. Politely state that you need time to understand the situation before responding to accusations.
Request information in writing. Immediately send a formal written request (email is ideal for creating a time-stamped record) to the principal or administrator. Request:
- The specific charges against the student
- The exact school rule(s) the student allegedly violated
- A complete copy of all evidence the school has, including witness statements, incident reports, and any video or audio recordings
Get the rulebook. Ask for a copy of the current student code of conduct and the school district’s official disciplinary policies and procedures.
Document Everything
A clear and thorough record is one of the most powerful tools in a disciplinary case.
Create a communication log. Keep a detailed log of every interaction with school officials. Note the date, time, the name and title of the person you spoke with, and a summary of what was discussed.
Use email. Whenever possible, use email to communicate with the school. This creates an automatic, undeniable record of your requests, the school’s responses, and the timelines involved.
Prepare for the Hearing
The level of preparation depends on the severity of potential punishment.
For a short-term suspension: The hearing will be an informal discussion. The student should prepare to clearly and respectfully state their version of events. Parents can help the student practice their explanation.
For a long-term suspension or expulsion: This requires more formal preparation.
File your appeal immediately. School districts have strict deadlines for requesting a hearing, often just a few days. Submit required paperwork immediately to preserve the right to a hearing.
Analyze the school’s evidence. Carefully review all evidence provided by the school. Look for inconsistencies, gaps, or potential biases in witness statements.
Gather your own evidence. Collect any evidence that supports the student’s case, such as text messages, social media posts, or photos that provide context or an alibi.
Identify witnesses and character references. Identify any students or adults who witnessed the incident and can support the student’s account. Additionally, gather letters of support from teachers, coaches, employers, or community leaders who can speak to the student’s good character, academic record, and the negative impact the punishment would have on them.
Build Your Team
Students and parents shouldn’t face the school system alone. The school has inherent authority and resources, and facing them can be isolating.
Work together. Parents and students should present a united front.
Bring support. Ask a trusted friend, family member, community advocate, or pastor to attend meetings and hearings. They can provide emotional support, take notes, and serve as a witness to the proceedings.
Know when to get a lawyer. For any case involving potential long-term suspension, expulsion, or disciplinary action against a student with a disability, seeking legal advice is critical. An experienced education law attorney or legal aid organization can help navigate complex procedures and ensure the student’s rights are fully protected.
The act of engaging in the formal process – requesting evidence, citing policies, and documenting communications – can signal to the school that the family is knowledgeable and serious. This can cause administrators to scrutinize a weak case more carefully and may lead to a more favorable resolution before a formal hearing is necessary.
Know Your Appeal Rights
If the hearing results in an unfavorable decision, that’s often not the end of the road.
Understand the tiers of appeal. The written decision should outline the appeal process. This typically involves appealing from a hearing officer to the local school board, and from there to a county board of education or to state court.
Mind the deadlines. Appeal processes have strict deadlines, so act quickly.
Resources for Help
Numerous organizations provide information, support, and legal assistance to families navigating the school discipline system.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): Provides “Know Your Rights” materials for students and engages in advocacy to protect student rights.
Legal Aid and Advocacy Groups: State and local legal aid societies often have education law projects that provide free legal assistance to low-income families.
Disability Rights Organizations: Every state has a federally mandated Protection and Advocacy (P&A) agency that advocates for the rights of individuals with disabilities, including in educational settings.
Center for Parent Information and Resources (CPIR): A central hub of information and resources for families of children with disabilities, funded by the U.S. Department of Education.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
