Case # 73-898, Goss v Lopez
Goss vs. Lopez was a very significant hearing that not
only went to Federal Court, but also on to Supreme Court for a final ruling.
The case was brought about after nine students were suspended for ten days
without any kind of hearing or parental notice prior to their suspension. The
reason these students were suspended was because they caused destructed damage
to school property and it was getting out of control. However, Ohio’s law did
not require the principle to conduct a hearing prior, but, many people felt
that the students fourteenth amendment was violated and, because of that, the
principles actions were challenged.
In federal court the judges ruled that the student’s rights
were in fact violated and that the school was in the wrong, because of this the
case was appealed and then moved on to the Supreme Court. The federal court
felt that the principle violated the students’ due process and that they should
have held a hearing before suspending. In the Supreme Court, Thomas Bustin, who
defended the students’, argued, that the students had the right to know why
they were being suspended and that suspending them without a proper hearing was
wrong.
The main issue that the Supreme Court had to decide on was
whether or not the school violated the students’ due process rights when
suspending the nine students without any formal hearing (Oyez 2011). In my
opinion I would say that the school was wrong, I believe that the students
deserved a proper hearing regardless of the situation. I think that the
principle jumped to fast on the situation and didn’t properly suspend the
students in the manor that they deserved. Although the students were doing
wrong, and deserved to be suspended, they also deserved to have a chance to
explain and defend their actions. The principle just suspended the students for
ten days without even knowing perhaps, the whole story.
In closing the Supreme Court ruled a 5-4 vote for Lopez
(who was one of the students involved in the case) (Oyez 2011). They felt that
Ohio had no right to take away their citizens’rights or violate their
fourteenth amendment. The court also felt that the students deserved a proper
hearing prior to their suspension and that the principle was out of line with
the way he handled the situation. The court agreed that the principle should
have called for a proper hearing prior to suspending the nine students and he
should have given them a chance to speak on their behalf.
This court case has become a huge case because of the
result that it caused. Not in any way did the Supreme Court side with Lopez and
the other eight students or condone what they did, but it was important to
determine that students are equally deserving of their rights (CaseBriefs LLC
2013), especially when they are involved in disciplinary actions that could
potentially lead to legal issues such as this case. The court ruled on Lopez’s
behalf because they felt that the students’ rights were violated and that the
principle didn’t go about the situation in a professional manor. Everyone has
rights and amendments that they are entitled to and what happened at this Ohio
school caused many people to reevaluate just exactly what they are.
I am glad that the court ruled on Lopez’s behalf because I
believe that the students should have had a formal hearing. I don’t think that
there is any excuse as to why they were being destructive, but I do believe
that a formal hearing should have been held before being suspended. The
students had no say or even any notice as to why they were being suspended and
I believe that the principle went about that in the worst way possible.
Work cited:
CaseBriefs LLC (2013). Goss V Lopez. CaseBriefs. Retrieved
from
Oyez (2011). Goss V Lopez. The Oyez Project at IIT
Chicago-Kent College of Law.
Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_898/.
No comments:
Post a Comment