Week+2+Judicial+Review

 435 U.S. 247, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 l.Ed 2d. 252
 * Carey v. Piphus**

1978

This case was a consolidation of two cases brought forth during the 1973-1974 school year in Chicago. In both situations, students were suspended for twenty days for behaviors that were in violation of school policy; in one, the behavior in question was illegal. Likewise, students involved denied the allegations. In the case of Jarius Piphus, a high school student, the Principal witnessed a behavior, but did not have evidence to support his allegations. In the case of Silas Brisco, the administrator and the elementary aged child disagreed about the meaning of a piece of jewelry. In both situations, the guardian //ad litem// filed suit asserting that their children were not afforded their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, and their children were readmitted to school before the full suspension was served. In both cases, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as actual and punitive damages ranging in amounts between $3,000 and $5,000.

What are the imperative elements for recovery of damages by students suspended from public schools without procedural due process?

If due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, is denied to any person under the jurisdiction of the United States, there is no requirement for proof of actual damages, although the damages awarded in such instances will be nominal. In these particular cases, regardless of whether suspensions were justified, the respondents would still be entitled to recovery of nominal damages not to exceed one dollar because they were denied due process.

In making the determination, the court granted certiorari to consider the 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, enacted as § 1 of The Civil Rights Act of 1871. Any person under the jurisdiction of the United States who is wrongfully injured as the result of the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed by the Constitution and laws is entitled to compensation for the injury. Because the right to due process in an "absolute" right, nominal damages would be awarded without requiring proof of actual damages. In order to ensure that the absolute rights are "scrupulously observed", the court found that any deprivation of said rights should result in a finding on behalf of anyone under US jurisdiction who is denied said rights.

Use the chart below to contribute key points, and add questions or additional comments as needed:
A freshman student, Piphus was suspended on the assumption that he was smoking marihuana according to a report the principal gave to the vice principal who was instructed to issue a 20day suspension. Two meetings were arranged between the school officials, members of the Legal Clinic and the mother of Piphus to determine whether the students Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because he had been suspended without due process. No resolve was found at the meeting so a suit was filed by the Mother and her legal aids team. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, together with damages in the amount of 3,000 due to the alleged violation of the students 14th Amendment rights as a result of him being denied due process. A sixth grade student Brisco was suspended on the assumption that he was wearing a small earring that the principal indicated was a violation of school rules due to the principals idea that it was representative of gang signal/symbol. The student contested the idea that the small earring was representative of black power and his Mother communicated this same idea. The complaint sought damages in the amount of 5,000 due to the alleged violation of the student being denied due process. The case is trying to determine whether in an action for the deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must prove that he actually was injured by the deprivation before he may recover substantial “nonpunitive” damages. || Can in the absence of proof of actual injury students be entitled to receive substantial monetary damages based on the fact that by denying due process their Fourteenth Amendment rights are being violated? || It was held that in the absence of proof of actual injury, the students are only entitled to recover nominal damages. || The judges considered the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and whether it is violated when due process is violated. The judges determined lose of due process does not automatically violate a individuals 14th Amendment rights because when the individual is not aware of the their 14th Amendment rights then the damages do not occur. The judges did consider the fact that emotional damages from being denied 14th Amendment rights do occur. The Due Process Clause does guarantee a “feeling of just treatment” that is violated when it is not received. The question of monetary damages for this feeling is determined to be so unquantifiable in both existence and in actual impact that without the proof of “injury” that only nominal damages can be rewarded. What is determined as being missed from the case is distress. Distress is defined by the law as a personal injury proved by showing the nature and circumstances of the wrong and its effect on the plaintiff. ||
 * **Team Member** || **Facts of the Case** || **Issue(s) at Hand** || **Holding** || **Rationale** ||
 * Ellen || Piphus was suspended when the principal thought he saw him using drugs at school. Brisco was suspended when he refused to remove an earring claiming it was a symbol of black pride, not gang affiliation. Neither student was afforded the right to due process. || Should students who are suspended from school without due process be allowed to recover damages? || Yes, but they are only due nominal damages unless they can prove actual injury. || Having your right to due process denied naturally causes distress or injury. However, those damages should be limited unless there is evidence of real, significant injury as a result. ||
 *  Tara || Two students were not accorded due process of law by their schools when they were suspended. Jarius Pipher was believed to have engaged in drug use on school property and Silas Brisco refused to remove an earring when requested by his principal, who felt that wearing earrings was a sign of gang membership. Both respondents, with their families, sued for actual and punitive damages. || Must individuals whose due process rights have been violated prove actual injury in order to recover substantial damages? ||  The Supreme Court found that in the absence of proof of actual injury, individuals are entitled to recover only nominal damages. ||  There was no proof that the individuals suffered as a result of the violation of their due process rights. Without this proof, it can only be acknowledged that a due process violation occurred and only nominal damages awarded. ||
 * Autumn || Two incidents brought this case to court.
 * Stacy || The issue is that of a Civil Rights violation specifically related to the //Fourteenth Amendment//. Two students were denied the right to due process in two separate incidents. || What are the elements and prerequisites for recovery of damages by students who were suspended from public schools without procedural due process? || Regardless of the rightfulness of the suspensions, and even if the students didn't suffer from "actual" damages or were not able to prove the damages claimed, they would be entitled to nominal compensation under the law. Someone denied his/her right to due process does NOT have to prove actual damages, but he/she will not be awarded anything more than nominal damages-- which, in this case, was not to exceed one dollar. This was a finding in favor of the person(s) denied due process. || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In order to ensure that the absolute rights are "scrupulously observed", the court found that any deprivation will result in a finding on behalf of anyone under US jurisdiction who is denied the rights. ||

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">

 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">One may have been able to argue that the lack of due process, especially if the suspensions were NOT warranted, would require some type of compensation to make up for missed educational time. In the elementary model in particular, I'd think that would have been considered. (SB)
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I think missed time from school, if it could be determined to have had actual detrimental effects would be compensated. If for example, a child was unable to take an HSA that would allow them to graduate or if they failed a class due to the absences (TW).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Questions:

 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Was anyone else shocked at how small "nominal" actually is? (SB) I was curious about it, but I think their point was that if your rights were violated regarding due process but there were no other proven ill effects, than it is most appropriate that there be acknowledgement that Yes, your rights were violated, but this does not mean that an amount of money is accorded to you as a result. (TW). I guess it is enough to be "right", but I wonder about he expense of taking something like this to court if you can't at least recover the legal fees. A dollar seems ridiculously low to me. (SB)
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Does the //de facto// finding in favor of those denied rights eliminate the possibility of claiming more damages if those damages can be proved? (SB)