Introduction
Honig versus Doe case was a milestone case argued in California courts during the year 1987 and decided in the year 1988. After the final court ruling, the rights of the mentally challenged students regarding school disciplinary actions were enhanced. Throughout the 1970s, several disabilities related laws were presented before the US courts (Boyle & Weishaar, 2001). These laws were aimed at instituting standards of free and suitable public education. In the Rehabilitation Act of the year 1973, all disabled individuals are assured of an education that is designed to meet their special needs and guarantees them access to the usual curriculum. Before the hearing of the Honig versus Doe case, two mentally challenged students had been suspended from a district school for misconduct related to their disabilities.
Facts
The two students were emotionally disturbed. Before one of the students named John Doe was suspended, he had been accused of exhibiting violent behaviors in school. On one incidence, he had choked his fellow student. Following the violations, the student was suspended despite the principal’s intentions to expel him. The second student was named Jack Smith. Smith was accused of extortions and sexual molestations. Following his indecent behaviors, the school administration allowed him to attend classes for half a day. Despite these disciplinary measures, the student did not stop his behaviors leading to his suspension. During their suspension time, the school held a hearing to determine the students’ future in the institution. Equally, during the suspension time, Doe’s mother went to court challenging the school for suspending his child while the hearing case was ongoing. On the other hand, Smith’s lawyer went to court to challenge the school for not allowing Smith to attend classes, as the hearing case was ongoing.
Legal issues
Based on the court proceedings, the court tried to give a ruling on whether mentally disturbed students should be considered as disabled individuals. Though earlier laws prohibiting schools from discriminating against disabled children existed, ambiguity arose when emotionally disturbed children were termed as disabled. Equally, it was not clear whether schools should allow suspended students to attend their classes as their hearings were proceeding (Weber & Mawdsley, 2004). In their bid to settle on the above controversial issues, the courts were supposed to establish appropriate practical protections for all disabled students, determine whether local schools could seek the help of the courts before expelling their students, and affirm that the state was responsible for providing suitable education to all disabled children.
Decisions
During the court ruling, the US District Court condemned the school for suspending the two students even after identifying that their violations were related to their disabilities. According to the court, the school had violated the Rehabilitation Act of the year 1973 (Tanenhaus, 2008). As a result, the court issued an impediment against the school officials for violating the law. Following the ruling, the school appealed against the court ruling in the US Court of Appeal. When the US Court of Appeal reviewed the District Court’s decision, they affirmed that no educational institution was allowed to suspend or expel students accused of disabilities-related misconduct when disciplinary hearings are ongoing. However, the court asserted that the rule could be exempted when the alleged students’ wrongdoings involve drugs, guns, or other weaponry that may result in severe bodily injury. During the ruling, the US Court of Appeal asserted that the district court judge had been right in banning the school officials for their involvement in the suspension of the two mentally handicapped students before the hearing cases were completed. By doing so, the original court decision was affirmed.
Rule or test
To come up with the above decision, the court used the moots test. The principles of this test were based on Article III of the US constitution. This method was preferred owing to the case’s ability to repeat itself.
Rationale
Before reaching the above decision, the court considered several factors. The judge was unswerving in her ruling, as she had considered the effects the parties were going to have in case the case was ruled in the favor of the respondent (McLynn, 1995). It should be noted that before the court made its final decision, it considered the effects of its ruling on both parties. Similarly, the student’s past and current behaviors and their rights were taken into consideration before the final ruling was announced.
Scope of holding
Several individuals including parents and education stakeholders attended the case ruling sessions in California. The case respondents were Doe and smith while the accused were from the San Francisco Unified School District.
Unresolved issues
Even though this case provided answers on suspension and expulsion of disabled students, it should be noted that the case left several unresolved issues. Notably, the case did not resolve how learning institutions should discipline disabled students appropriately when they contravene the school rules. Although the court permitted schools to employ the usual disciplinary methods when disciplining disabled children, the matter is still considered contentious. For instance, critics may question the criteria in which a disciplinary method is considered fair to be termed normal. Equally, controversies arise when identifying the appropriate procedure to be employed when suspending and expelling handicapped students. On the other hand, the court ruling on an interim replacement of handicapped children seems controversial. As such, the court asserted that if the parents and the school administration find that the involved child is extremely dangerous they should seek the courts for assistance. Based on the above ruling, it is clear that the schools will have hard times proving that the accused students are extremely dangerous (Julnes & Brown, 2002).
References
Boyle, J. R., & Weishaar, M. K. (2001). Special education law with cases. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Julnes, R. E., & Brown, S. E. (2002). Leading cases in special education law: edited court cases, 1992 . Seattle, Wash.: School Law Division, Institute for the Study of Educational Policy, College of Education, University of Washington.
McLynn, F. (1995). Famous trials: cases that made history. Pleasantville, N.Y.: Reader’s Digest Association.
Tanenhaus, D. S. (2008). Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.
Weber, M. C., & Mawdsley, R. D. (2004). Special education law: cases and materials. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.