Is due process required prior to an afterschool detention

Full Answer Section

          The landmark case defining student due process rights in disciplinary actions is Goss v. Lopez (1975). In this case, the Supreme Court held that students facing even temporary suspensions (10 days or less) from public school have a legitimate entitlement to a public education, which is a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. They also have a liberty interest in their reputation that is at stake when facing suspension. The Goss v. Lopez ruling established that for short-term suspensions (up to 10 days), students are entitled to minimal due process. This minimal due process generally includes:

1. Notice of the charges: The student must be told orally or in writing of the charges against them.
2. Explanation of the evidence: If the student denies the charges, they must be given an explanation of the evidence the authorities have.
3. Opportunity to present their side of the story: The student must be given an opportunity to present their version of the facts.

Applying this to After-School Detention: An after-school detention, while a form of discipline, is generally considered a minor disciplinary action with a less significant impact on a student's property or liberty interests compared to a suspension or expulsion.

• Property Interest: While it involves a brief restriction of a student's time, it does not typically deprive them of the right to attend school or receive instruction, which is the core property interest established in Goss. The student is still in school; their time is simply extended.

Sample Answer

      To determine if due process is required prior to an after-school detention, we need to examine the principles of due process as applied to student discipline in the U.S. context, primarily drawing from the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and relevant Supreme Court case law. The Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." In the context of public education, the Supreme Court has interpreted "liberty" to include the right to an education and "property" to include certain entitlements to public education, once a state provides it.