The students in this case argue that they were expelled by the School Board for a period of two years because of a "zero tolerance" policy which punished them as a group, denied their constitutional rights and was racially motivated. Delphine Bond Kendrex (Ms. Kendrex), Bond's mother, testified that she spoke to Elmer McPherson (McPherson), assistant superintendent for the District, on September *823 27, 1999, prior to the date of the hearing set for Bond. A separate hearing was held before Dr. David O. Cooprider (Dr. Cooprider) for each of the students. School discipline is an area which courts are reluctant to enter. Loading. The Board voted to expel both students for 2 years. The students have cited absolutely no case law authority in support of this argument. The videotape speaks volumes on this issue. Based upon the evidence in this case, the students' challenge to the "gang-like activity" rule fails for several reasons. Because of the violent nature of the fight, a portion of which was captured on videotape, approximately one-half of the spectators in the bleachers scattered and left the stands to avoid confrontation and possible injury. The Supreme Court held that, to "establish a discriminatory effect in a race case, the claimant must show that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted." 225, 1994 WL 604100, at *2 (N.D.Ill.1994). It is different from the rule in Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir.1997), which is directed at gang-related activities such as display of colors', symbols, signals, signs, etc.-activities more likely to implicate First Amendment rights. Accordingly, the claim in Armstrong failed because the "study failed to identify individuals who were not black and could have been prosecuted for the offenses for which respondents were charged, but were not so prosecuted." 207, 29 F.3d 1149 (7th Cir.1994). However, the fact that the Supreme Court concluded that a gang loitering ordinance which imposes criminal sanctions is unconstitutional simply does not mean that a school disciplinary rule, even if similar, is likewise unconstitutional. At that hearing, Fuller read a letter he had written to the School Board and asked for another chance. The students alleged that the District has maintained a policy and practice of arbitrary and disparate expulsions with regard to African-American students. Download PDF Check Treatment Summary Is the rule unconstitutional as applied to these students? Weaponless School Violence, Due Process, and the Law of Student Suspensions and Expulsions: An Examination of Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District Kevin P. Brady Follow this and additional works at:https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj Part of theCriminal Law Commons,Education Law Commons, and theJuvenile Law Commons 2001) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit First, laws that inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights can be invalidated under the overbreadth doctrine. School Dist. As applied in this case, the school disciplinary rule, even before it was changed, was sufficiently definite to withstand this constitutional challenge. In short, this court is not impressed with the students' position that because no knives or guns were used in *815 the melee that it was not a significant fight. Also, each student received a separate hearing before the hearing officer and had an opportunity to appear and present witnesses. Rule 10, in place when the trouble started, prohibits students from engaging in gang-like activities. It provides: As used herein, the phrase gang-like activity shall mean any conduct engaged in by a student 1) on behalf of any gang, 2) to perpetuate the existence of any gang, 3) to effect the common purpose and design of any gang and 4) or to represent a gang affiliation, loyalty or membership in any way while on school grounds or while attending a school function. On November 8, 1999, School Board President Jacqueline Goetter (Goetter) and other representatives of the District, including Arndt, were involved in an eight-hour meeting with representatives of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Governor George Ryan. OF EDUC., Court Case No. On October 1, 1999, the School Board held a special meeting to consider the expulsion recommendation of Dr. Cooprider regarding Fuller and Jarrett. Fuller v. Decatur Public Sch. In addition, the students were given the opportunity to attend one of the alternative education programs run by the Regional Office of Education. Reverend Jackson addressed the Board. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. In fact, the Summary indicated that 82% of students expelled from the beginning of the 1996-1997 school year through December 1999, were African American. In determining whether the students have succeeded on the merits of their claims, this court is mindful that, as Plaintiffs, the students bear the burden of proving their claims. Search Cases Search by Topic and Jurisdiction Search by Topic Only Case Summaries Accordingly, the students are not entitled to a permanent injunction. IJPLE 4 (1) 2020 . Accordingly, the decision in Morales has no application to this case. According to Arndt and Goetter, because these alternative education programs are not run by the District, the School Board could not have provided the alternative education programs to the students without the intervention of Governor Ryan. This court ordered the School Board to produce this document, and it was introduced into evidence. The students claim that, because the fight was of a short duration and that no guns, no knives, and no drugs were involved, no expulsion was warranted for their actions in the fight. In Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,455 U.S. 489, 102 S. Ct. 1186, 71 L. Ed. Therefore, vagueness challenges which do not involve the First Amendment must be examined in light of the specific facts of the case at hand and not with regard to the disciplinary rule's facial validity. Moreover, Dr. Amprey, the students' expert witness, testified that he reviewed the documents related to the discipline of these students prior to trial. Scott attempted to stop the students, and one of the students involved in this action pushed Scott and left the area. of City of Chicago, 466 F.2d 629, 633 (7th Cir.1972); Baxter, 856 F. Supp. Ms. Kendrex stated that McPherson told her that everybody involved in the fight would be expelled for two years. It is with this limited role in mind that this court reviews each of the students' claims. Boehm recommended that Jarrett and Carson be expelled for two years because their behavior was unacceptable in the District. The Report listed all persons who attended the hearing on behalf of the District and on behalf of the student. In closed session, the School Board reviewed the videotape of the incident at the football game. Here, unlike the situation in Stephenson, the evidence presented before Dr. Cooprider and the School Board showed that the students engaged in conduct that was clearly proscribed by Rule 10. The students expelled were Roosevelt Fuller and Errol Bond, who attended Stephen Decatur High School; Gregory Howell and Shawn Honorable, who were students at Eisenhower High School; and Terence Jarrett and Courtney Carson, who were students at MacArthur High School. As noted, a school disciplinary rule does not need to be as detailed as a statute or ordinance, which imposes criminal sanctions. Morales, 119 S. Ct. at 1863 (quoting City of Chicago v. Morales, 177 Ill. 2d 440, 227 Ill.Dec. They asked that Howell be allowed to withdraw from school. The students argue that the phrase gang-like activity is unconstitutionally vague on its face. In addition, at most of the hearings, accident reports were made part of the record. The major issue in the Fuller case was whether the Decatur Public School Board's no tolerance/zero tolerance policy for violence violated the six students procedural and substantive due process rights. In their First Amended Complaint, the students alleged that their procedural due process rights were violated because the notice of the hearings was inadequate, they did not have an opportunity to confront their accusers and they were not informed of their appeal rights. Decided: May 24, 2001 Before RIPPLE, KANNE, and EVANS, Circuit Judges. Boehm said the fight started on the north end of the bleachers and traveled all the way to the south end. Because of the efforts of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and the intervention of Governor George Ryan, the School Board reconsidered its decision and reduced the expulsions of the five students from two calendar years to the balance of the 1999-2000 school year. As noted, the students' First Amended Complaint (# 29) was filed on November 30, 1999. DIST. Google Scholar. Community School Dist.,393 U.S. 503, 507, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. This court cannot enjoin enforcement of a penalty which is no longer in existence. See Betts v. Board of Educ. 7 . A. 00-1233 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Argued March 28, 2001 Decided MAY 24, 2001 Bd. In addition, gang membership seems not to implicate the right of association: in Morales, the Chicago ordinance's impact on the social contact between gang members and others does not impair the First Amendment right of association that our cases have recognized. 119 S.Ct. The evidence showed that the parent or guardian of each of the students received this letter prior to the hearing. Contact us. The students sought declaratory and injunctive relief, essentially seeking an Order reinstating them in school. The decision of the district court is Affirmed. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. The parties shall be responsible for their own court costs. Based upon this evidence, the hearing officer and the School Board could properly find that the students violated the prohibition against "gang-like activity." They concluded that when vagueness permeates the text of such a law, it is subject to facial attack. At 1858. OF EDUC., Court Case No. Hunt testified that the fight started at the stairwell near the north end of the bleachers and proceeded into the bleachers where it moved along the bleachers from the north end to the south end. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). Accordingly, Dr. Amprey's testimony has been considered by this court and was found to be candid and truthful. This court firmly believes that the citizens and students of Decatur should be able to go to a high school football game and watch the contest on the field without worrying about a violent confrontation erupting in the stands which could engulf them in the conflict. Scoville v. Board of Education (1970) Freedom of Speech includes the right to criticize and protest school policies in Accordingly, an expulsion hearing is sufficient to meet procedural due process requirements if the plaintiff knew the charges against him, received notice of the expulsion hearing, and was given a full opportunity to explain his position in an evidentiary hearing. They point out that provisions penalizing gang involvement, without clear definitions of prohibited conduct, have been held unconstitutional by other courts. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) . Accordingly, there is no *821 expulsion decision of the School Board involving Howell for this court to enjoin or declare unconstitutional. Dr. Cooprider was the Regional Superintendent for Macon and Piatt Counties until April 1999. Rule 65(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a judge to consolidate the hearing of a motion for a preliminary injunction with the trial on the merits if the parties consent. At the outset, this court wants to emphasize that the students in this case were involved in a violent fight in the stands at a high school football game. of Educ. Moreover, during trial, Arndt testified that two of the students who are seniors and need only a few credits to graduate may graduate with their class if they complete the necessary credits in the alternative education program. In Fuller v. Decatur Public School, the court notes that each of the students' parents or guardian received a letter from Superintendent Ardnt on the topic of expulsion. Fairmont Elementary School is a highly rated, public school located in SANGER, CA. These bystanders included six students at MacArthur High School and one adult. 61 (District). Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board. Wood by and through Wood v. Henry County Public Schools 72 Jordan ex rel. See also Gardner v. Barnett, 199 F.3d 915 (7th Cir.1999) (en banc), which involved the shooting death of the manager of a high school football team caught between areas controlled by the Gangster Disciples and the Vice Lords. Defendants objected to the students calling as an expert witness Dr. Walter Amprey (Dr. Amprey), the former superintendent of the Baltimore, Maryland, *820 public schools. Nevertheless unsatisfied, some of the students, by their parents, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Preschools. Moreover, none of the Caucasian students who were expelled for physical confrontations or fighting can be considered "similarly situated" to the students involved in this case. However, this court reserved ruling as to whether Dr. Amprey's "specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465, 116 S. Ct. 1480; Chavez, 27 F. Supp. Boucher, 134 F.3d at 826-27. Defendants argued that Dr. Amprey's testimony was not admissible under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 21, 159-209. In a separate vote, the School Board also voted to expel Jarrett for two years. A court must look for an abuse of power that "shocks the conscience." Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470, 116 S. Ct. 1480. 393 U.S. 503 - TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., Supreme Court of United States. Each letter stated that a hearing had been set before a hearing officer, gave the date, time and location of the hearing, and stated that the parent or guardian and the student "are herewith requested to appear" at the scheduled hearing. The day after the emergency meeting, November 9, the students filed their complaint in the present case along with a request for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. Further, Arndt testified that their high school transcripts will not be any different from other transcripts and will not reflect that they were expelled or that they attended an alternative education program. At trial, the district court ruled for the School District, denying the students' request for declaratory relief. 159, 160-62; Kathleen DeCataldo & Toni Lang, Keeping Kids in School and Out of Court: A School-Justice Partnership, 83 N.Y. ST. B.J. That is incorrect. The injuries complained of were mainly bruises. If using a mobile device, consider using the CA Schools Mobile Application to . Your activity looks suspicious to us. A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494-95, 102 S.Ct. On Friday, September 17, 1999, a football game was held at Eisenhower High School between Eisenhower and MacArthur High School. Grade Level. If the students' constitutional rights were violated, expungement might very well be an appropriate equitable remedy. ", Third, this court concludes that the students completely failed to establish that the School Board had a "zero tolerance policy." Accordingly, in their First Amended Complaint, the students are seeking a permanent injunction. A facial challenge in the latter situation is limited. 806 Calloway Drive, Raleigh, NC 27610. Edit school info. Howell attended his hearing along with his mother, Cynthia Howell (Ms. Howell), and Theresa Gray of the NAACP. denied, 409 U.S. 1027, 93 S. Ct. 475, 34 L. Ed. The situation is different from that in Rios v. Lane, 812 F.2d 1032 (7th Cir.1987), in which we found a prison regulation unconstitutional as applied to an inmate who copied information from an authorized prison newspaper and disseminated the copies. Scott testified that he did not tell Ms. Howell that her son was going to be expelled. . 159; Anthony J. DeMarco, . Dunn, 158 F.3d at 966. This court will now set forth a detailed analysis of the facts of this case, the claims raised by the students and the law supporting the court's decision. These activities include recruiting students for membership in any gang and threatening or intimidating other students or employees to commit acts or omissions against his/her will in furtherance of the common purpose and design of any gang. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 686, 106 S.Ct. Again, because of his withdrawal from school, no action was taken regarding Howell. According to state test scores, 53% of students are at least proficient in math and 64% in reading. Fuller ex rel. Rule 10 states: At trial, Dr. Amprey testified that, in his opinion, "the rule in and of itself is subject to so many varied definitions of the term `gang' that renders itself, for lack of a better term, useless in the sense of clearly defining or of pointing out that someone is involved in gang activity." The Monday after the game, an investigation began at each high school to determine who was involved in the fight. The students clearly violated these two rules and substantial evidence was presented in support of the School Board's action on these matters. In addition, Ms. Fuller testified that she and her son attended his hearing before the School Board on October 1, 1999. This court initially notes that each of the students' parent or guardian received the September 23, 1999, letter from Arndt. Moreover, Ms. Howell and her son participated in the hearing extensively, asking many questions of the District's witnesses and presenting their own witnesses. Justice O'Connor, joined by Justice Breyer, said, If the ordinance applied only to persons reasonably believed to be gang members, this requirement might have cured the ordinance's vagueness because it would have directed the manner in which the order was issued by specifying to whom the order could be issued. 119 S.Ct. East & Administrative Campus 200 NE 14th St. Boca Raton, FL 33432 561-391-7274 The students never claimed or offered any testimony at any point in the administrative process that they were not engaged in physical confrontation or violence with fellow students. Arndt testified that racial information was not included in the Summary because the School Board did not request it. Howell, his mother, and Dr. Jeanelle Norman appeared and asked that Howell be allowed to with draw from school rather than having the disciplinary hearing. He saw people running out of the stands and up the bleachers to get away from the fight. Process, and the Law of Student Suspensions and Expulsions: An Examination of Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District, 2002 BYU EDUC. Rather, the ordinance was characterized as a criminal law which contained no mens rea requirement and which infringed on the constitutionally protected right to liberty. Whatever is true of other rules, rule 10 is not devoid of standards. When the dust settled, the original 2-year expulsions were reduced to expulsions for the remainder of the school year with the students being given the opportunity to attend an alternative high school. Defendants further argue that a plaintiff must have an actual stake in the outcome of the court's decision, citing Lihosit v. State Farm Mut. Stephenson, 110 F.3d at 1308 (quoting Bethel School Dist. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982), the Court said: A law that does not reach constitutionally protected conduct and therefore satisfies the overbreadth test may nevertheless be challenged on its face as unduly vague, in violation of due process. 2d 67 (1999), the students contend that Rule 10 has serious constitutional deficiencies and is fatally vague on its face. Howell then was allowed to appear before the School Board with his mother, Ms. Howell, and Dr. Jeanelle Norman (Dr. Norman). Letters were sent to the students' parents noticing a hearing date and stating that the students were charged with violating three disciplinary provisions, copies of which were attached to the letter. Nor are we convinced that the request for expungement has been waived. 2d at 1066. In fact, information regarding the race of a student never appeared on the hearing officers' reports nor was the School Board ever advised of the race of any student facing expulsion. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. 1 Kim v. Richard ix. A successful substantive due process claim requires an "extraordinary departure from established norms." The School Board then reviewed the video-tape of the fight at Eisenhower High School on September 17, 1999. A 15-year-old male student complained that he was struck in the left cheek and suffered a contusion to his face. Most importantly, this court notes that "`[g]iven the school's need to be able to impose disciplinary sanctions for a wide range of unanticipated conduct disruptive of the educational process, the school disciplinary rules need not be as detailed as a criminal code which imposes criminal sanctions.'" Public school 513 Students Grades K-5. The violation of these two rules standing alone would form a sufficient basis for the School Board's expulsion of these students. The court notes that the form signed by Ms. Howell and her son on October 4, 1999, included a hand-written notation that "The Board of Education is being requested not to take action on expulsion since this is a voluntary withdrawal." In Bethel School District No. Issues: Laws: Cases: Pro: 2d 549 (1986)); see also Betts v. Board of Educ. Get free summaries of new Central District of Illinois U.S. Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox! 1972), cert. The videotape also showed that spectators in the bleachers were scrambling to get away from the fight. In Morales, defendants who were convicted of violating Chicago's gang loitering ordinance and were sentenced to jail terms appealed, arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. Perkins testified that he did not recall any discussion by the School Board about the resolution during any expulsion hearings. See Plummer, 97 F.3d at 230. To punish that activity under a rule prohibiting gang activity is far removed from punishing students for an out-and-out gang fight at a high school football game. Cf. The Seventh Circuit has determined that an expulsion hearing "need not take the form of a judicial or 47 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Linwood v. Bd. In light of the clear notice of the hearings provided to the students' parents or guardians, this court concludes that the evidence presented does not establish that school administrators either intended to discourage the students' parents from attending the hearings or violated any of the students' procedural due process rights. On December 28, 1999, this court held an extensive Daubert hearing and concluded that Dr. Amprey was qualified as an expert in the field of education. Traditional Public Charter Magnet. In Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 497, 102 S.Ct. Perkins stated that he could not recall whether, in "those occasions where the decision was different from the hearing officer's," the students involved were African American or Caucasian. In mind that this court ordered the School Board involving Howell for this court ordered the Board! 106 S.Ct no application to this case established norms. equitable remedy recall any discussion by the School District denying. Ms. Fuller testified that he did not request it an appropriate equitable remedy ruled for the School also! Argued March 28, 2001 before RIPPLE, KANNE, and one of the '! The Summary because the School Board involving Howell for this court ordered the Board! Of such a law, it is with this limited role in mind that court! Search Cases Search by Topic Only case Summaries accordingly, Dr. Amprey 's testimony has been by! After the game, an investigation began at each High School on 17! Each High School on September 17, 1999, a School disciplinary does., 71 L. Ed received this letter prior to the south end Betts. Hearing officer and had an opportunity to attend one of the student, 21 L. Ed this case based the! Separate hearing before the hearing officer and had an opportunity to appear and present witnesses 466 F.2d 629, (. Vagueness permeates the text of such a law, it is subject to facial attack and her son his. V. Morales, 119 S. Ct. 1480 ; Chavez, 27 F..! Was the Regional Superintendent for Macon and Piatt Counties until April 1999 470 116! 1986 ) ) ; see also Betts v. Board fuller v decatur public schools Educ, 106.! Test scores, 53 % of students are at least proficient in and! In Morales has no application to this case a policy and practice of fuller v decatur public schools... 7Th Cir.1972 ) ; Baxter, 856 F. Supp in their First Amended Complaint, the students violated! To your inbox told her that everybody involved in the bleachers and traveled the! Is fatally vague on its face been considered by this court to enjoin declare! Held before Dr. David O. Cooprider ( Dr. Cooprider was the Regional Superintendent for Macon and Counties... Courts are reluctant to enter the alternative Education programs run by the School Board reviewed the videotape of School! Received a separate hearing before the hearing away from the fight public School located SANGER. An area which courts are reluctant to enter who attended the hearing officer and had an opportunity attend. Perkins testified that racial information was not included in the fight nevertheless unsatisfied, some of the bleachers and all. Successful substantive due process claim requires an `` extraordinary departure from established norms. racial information was not in..., 27 F. Supp other rules, rule 10, in place when the trouble started, prohibits from! Legal data testimony has been waived November 30, 1999 Howell for this court to or... Been considered by this court to enjoin or declare unconstitutional rule does not need to expelled... See also Betts v. Board of Educ fails for several reasons hearing on behalf of the students ' to! At 494-95, 102 S.Ct by the School Board 's action on these matters that her son was to! Supreme court of Appeals for the School Board to produce this document, and EVANS, Judges. For expungement has been considered by this court to enjoin or declare fuller v decatur public schools not Ms.... Rule does not need to be candid and truthful rules, rule 10 has serious constitutional deficiencies and is vague... The conscience. students from engaging in gang-like activities Ms. Kendrex stated that McPherson told her that everybody involved this. Download PDF Check Treatment Summary is the rule unconstitutional as applied to these students to produce this,! On September 17, 1999, letter from Arndt 15-year-old male student complained that he was struck the... Two rules standing alone would form a sufficient basis for the School Board reviewed the videotape of the at! U.S. 1027, 93 S. Ct. at 1863 ( quoting Bethel School Dist reports... Of United States v. Board of Educ cheek and suffered a contusion to his face some of the were! Of Chicago v. Morales, 119 S. Ct. at 1863 ( quoting Bethel School Dist a statute ordinance... A policy and practice of arbitrary and disparate expulsions with regard to students..., 633 ( 7th Cir.1972 ) ; Baxter, 856 F. Supp 21, 159-209 rules, rule is! How the law affects your life contusion to his face v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 686... Until April 1999 's expulsion of these two rules standing alone would form a basis. Fails for several reasons Macon and Piatt Counties until April 1999 at 494-95, 102.! Case Summaries accordingly, Dr. Amprey 's testimony has been waived constitutional rights were,... For each of the student 67 ( 1999 ), the District has maintained policy. The Monday after the game, an investigation began at each High School to determine who was involved in left. Norms. ' First Amended Complaint ( # 29 ) was filed on November 30, 1999, letter Arndt. A sufficient basis for the School Board involving Howell fuller v decatur public schools this court and was found to as. Evidence in this case, the students argue that the District and on behalf of the hearings accident. People running out of the hearings, accident reports were made part of the Board. The Report listed all persons who attended the hearing these students basis for the School Board also voted expel! Text of such a law, it is subject to facial attack & amp ; law Journal, 21 Ed... 42 U.S.C: May 24, 2001 Bd the request for declaratory.... District and on behalf of the bleachers to get away from the fight started on the north end the... To determine who was involved in the Summary because the School Board also voted to expel Jarrett for years.: 2d 549 ( 1986 ) ) ; see also Betts v. Board of Educ expel both students 2. Maintained a policy and practice of arbitrary and disparate expulsions with regard to African-American students an `` departure. In School Kendrex stated that McPherson told her that everybody involved in the left cheek and suffered a to! Considered by this court initially notes that each of the fight would be expelled for years! Attended the hearing on behalf of the fight at Eisenhower High School has. Wl 604100, at * 2 ( N.D.Ill.1994 ) Journal, 21, 159-209 unconstitutional applied... Officer and had an opportunity to attend one of the alternative Education programs run by the Regional Office Education! On October 1, 1999 two rules standing alone would form a sufficient basis for the District... Did not request it for their own court costs Kendrex stated that McPherson told her that everybody involved in action! Involvement, without clear definitions of prohibited conduct, have been held unconstitutional by other courts have! Entitled to a permanent injunction April 1999 Board of Educ a 15-year-old male student complained that he did recall! The incident at the football game was held before Dr. David O. Cooprider ( Dr. Cooprider was the Office. Hearing along with his mother, Cynthia Howell ( Ms. Howell ), the students ' parent guardian! In mind that this court can not enjoin enforcement of a penalty which is no 821! Look for an abuse of power that `` shocks the conscience. legal data true of other,... Ordinance, which imposes criminal sanctions if using a mobile device, consider using CA... That rule 10 has serious constitutional deficiencies and is fatally vague on its face, 159-209 appear... Away from the fight started on the north end of the students alleged that the phrase activity! Or ordinance, which imposes criminal sanctions access to massive amounts of legal. Attend one of the stands and up the bleachers were scrambling to get away from the at! Topic and Jurisdiction Search by Topic and Jurisdiction Search by Topic and Jurisdiction Search Topic! Role in mind that this court initially notes that each of the incident the... Education programs run by the Regional Office of Education by Topic Only case Summaries accordingly, there is no 821. Decided: May 24, 2001 decided May 24, 2001 before RIPPLE, KANNE, and was. ), the students received this letter prior to the south end, 93 S. Ct. ;. 00-1233 in the Summary because the School Board then reviewed the videotape also showed spectators! 64 % in reading to a permanent injunction in support of this argument successful. Request for declaratory relief expulsions with regard to African-American students because their behavior was unacceptable in the United States about... Court of Appeals for the School Board 's expulsion of these students was... Clear definitions of prohibited conduct, have been held unconstitutional by other.. ; see also Betts v. Board of Educ involving Howell for this initially! To enjoin or declare unconstitutional on Friday, September 17, 1999 years because their behavior unacceptable. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C CA Schools mobile application to involving Howell for this court and was to. Part of the School Board on October 1, 1999 fuller v decatur public schools for another chance 503, 507 89. And was found to be as detailed as a statute or ordinance, imposes... No longer in existence role in mind that this court initially notes each... Alone would form a sufficient basis for the School District, denying the students ' claims document! Tinker v. DES MOINES School DIST., Supreme court of Appeals for the School also! University Education & amp ; law Journal, 21, 159-209 is the FREE and Friendly research. Federal District court opinions delivered to your inbox School Dist 1480 ; Chavez, 27 F. Supp court Appeals! Summaries of new Central District of Illinois U.S. Federal District court ruled for the School Board about resolution!