Meghan Steckel-May
ED 519 –Issues, Laws and Trends
November 30, 2010
Case Brief #3
A.
Title – Carey v. Piphus
B.
Court Reference – 435 U.S. 247 (1978)
C.
Facts – Piphus was a high school student who was caught smoking by the principal. The principal
suspected that Piphus was smoking marijuana due to the smell and “irregularly shaped” cigarette.
Piphus denied this. Even though it was never proven that Piphus was smoking marijuana, he was
suspended anyway. The school did have a meeting with the parents to discuss the suspension, but not
to actually prove that he was smoking marijuana. Piphus sued arguing that he was suspended without
due process and was asking for financial compensation.
This case was combined with another student’s case – Silas Brisco. He was a sixth grade
student suspended in the same school year for refusing to remove an earring that the principal
assumed was associated with gang activity. Brisco stated that it was a symbol of black pride. Brisco
was suspended and then sued asking for financial compensation as well.
D.
Issues – Should students receive financial compensation if they were suspended from public schools
without due process?
E.
Holdings - The District Court found that both students were suspended without due process, but
denied financial compensation because there was no proof that distress or damage to the student
occurred. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and stated that regardless of whether they can
prove actual distress or damage, people are entitled to financial compensation just because their
constitutional rights were violated.
F.
Rationale - The Court referenced 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when deciding this case. This has to do with
tort liability. Under this provision, people are entitled to receive financial compensation even if they
don’t have proof of damage. The Court felt that upholding an individual’s constitutional right
supersedes having to prove one was distressed and damaged because of the violation.
Because the right to procedural due process is "absolute" in the sense that it does not
depend upon the merits of a claimant's substantive assertions, and because of the
importance to organized society that procedural due process be observed, the denial of
procedural due process should be actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual
injury, and therefore if it is determined that the suspensions of the students in this case
were justified, they nevertheless will be entitled to recover nominal damages.
G.
Significance - Schools are held liable for financial compensation if they do not provide due process.
Any disciplinary action that is taken by a school must be done in a fair and procedural way, which is
why there are meetings, notification letters, and suspension/expulsion hearings. This is a way for the
school to cover itself so that students are treated fairly and so that the chance of damage is minimal.
Citations:
Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1970/carey_v_piphus_us_supreme_court.htm>.