- Date:
- March 21, 1978
- Location:
- United States
Carey v. Piphus
-
What is Carey v. Piphus?
In Carey v. Piphus (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that school officials could be financially liable for violating a student’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural due process if unjustified actions led to actual injury. Without proof of injury, the officials may only be liable for damages up to one dollar.
The case originated when two Chicago students, Jarius Piphus and Silas Brisco, were suspended without hearings. Piphus was suspended for smoking marijuana, which he denied, and Brisco for wearing an earring as a symbol of Black pride, violating a school rule against gang activity.
The Court decided that violating students' due process rights entitled them to damage awards. However, substantial damages would not be awarded without actual injury proof, and students were only entitled to nominal damages. The student must prove the injury resulted from denial of due process, not justified removal from school.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Who was involved in Carey v. Piphus?
Carey v. Piphus was a case involving Jarius Piphus and Silas Brisco, two students who claimed their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process were violated when they were suspended from school without a hearing. They sued their school board, arguing they were entitled to monetary damages.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 21, 1978, that school officials could be financially liable if the student proves the officials were unjustified and an actual injury occurred. However, without proof of injury, officials may only be liable for small damages. The court reversed the appellate court's decision and sent the case back.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What was the main issue in the Carey v. Piphus case?
In Carey v. Piphus, the central issue before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether students suspended from public school without due process could receive substantial damages even without proving actual injury. The Court ruled on March 21, 1978, that while a violation of due process rights was evident, substantial damages would only be awarded if the students could prove their removal from school was unjustified.
Without proof of actual injury, students were entitled to only nominal damages, not exceeding one dollar. The Court reversed the appellate court's decision, emphasizing the student's responsibility to prove that the injury was directly caused by the due process violation, not by other justifiable factors related to their suspension.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why did the students in Carey v. Piphus sue the school?
Carey v. Piphus was a consolidation of cases involving two students, Jarius Piphus and Silas Brisco, who contended that their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process were violated when they were suspended from school without a hearing. Piphus was suspended for allegedly smoking marijuana, which he denied, and Brisco for wearing an earring as a symbol of Black pride, violating a school rule. They sued their school board, seeking monetary damages for the violation of their due process rights. The Supreme Court ruled that school officials could be financially liable if their actions were unjustified and caused actual injury, but without such proof, liability would be limited to nominal damages.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What decision did the Supreme Court make in Carey v. Piphus?
In Carey v. Piphus, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials could be financially liable for violating a student’s procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment if the student proves the officials' actions were unjustified and caused actual injury. However, if the student can't prove actual injury, the officials may only be liable for nominal damages, up to one dollar. The court stated that students must prove that an injury occurred due to the due process violation, not other justifiable factors, such as a lawful suspension. The case was decided 8–0 on March 21, 1978.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did Carey v. Piphus affect students' rights in schools?
In Carey v. Piphus (1978), the Supreme Court addressed student rights, ruling that school officials could be financially liable for breaching a student's Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural due process if their actions were unjustified and caused actual injury. However, without proof of injury, officials would be liable only for nominal damages, up to one dollar.
The Court clarified that students must prove that the injury was a direct result of the due process violation, not from a justified removal from school. If the removal was lawful, substantial damages wouldn't be awarded, even if emotional distress occurred without due process.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Carey v. Piphus, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21, 1978, ruled (8–0) that public school officials can be financially liable for violating a student’s procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment if the student can prove the officials were unjustified in their actions and that an actual injury had occurred. If the student is unable to offer such proof, school officials may be liable only for small damages, not to exceed one dollar.
The case involved two students, one of whom was Jarius Piphus, a freshman at a vocational high school in Chicago. In 1974 he received a 20-day suspension for reportedly smoking marijuana on school grounds. Piphus denied the allegation, but he was never permitted a hearing to challenge the suspension. The second student was Silas Brisco, a sixth grader at a Chicago elementary school. In 1973 he wore an earring to school, in violation of a school rule that sought to limit gang activity. When asked to remove it, Brisco refused, claiming that the earring was “a symbol of black pride, not of gang membership.” Without being granted a hearing or other form of procedural due process, he was suspended for 20 days. The students sued their school board, arguing that their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process had been violated and that they were entitled to monetary damages. Their cases were later consolidated.
A federal district court subsequently ruled that both students had been denied due process. In addressing the issue of damages, the court, citing Wood v. Strickland (1975), rejected school officials’s claims of qualified immunity, because they should have realized “that a lengthy suspension without any adjudicative hearing of any type” was a violation of procedural due process. However, because the students failed to provide evidence of injuries resulting from the suspensions, the court refused to award damages. A court of appeals, however, reversed in part and remanded, holding that the lower court should have reviewed evidence of injury that was received after the judgment. Furthermore, according to the appellate court, if school officials could show that the students would have been suspended regardless of a hearing, then damages “representing the value of missed school time” should not be awarded. However, the court held that Piphus and Brisco were entitled to “substantial non-punitive” damages because their procedural due process rights had been violated.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
On December 6, 1977, the case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held that consistent with previous cases such as Wood, school officials can be financially liable for deprivation of students’ protected rights, and the facts of Piphus clearly supported the notion that school officials did indeed violate the two students’ right to due process. Further, in acknowledging the critical importance of citizens’ observing and abiding by federally protected rights, the court ruled that a violation of the due process rights of students per se is sufficient to entitle them to awards for damages.
At the same time, the court decided that a violation of due process, absent actual injury, was not sufficient to award substantial damages. When due process has been violated in the context of student discipline, but without proof of actual injury resulting from that violation, the court explained that students are entitled to only nominal damages. In addition, the court stated that substantial damages may be awarded only when students are able to show that their removal from school was unlawful or unjustified.
The court further addressed the issue of injury. According to the court, it is the student’s responsibility to prove that an injury occurred and that the injury was caused by the violation of due process and not by other, justifiable factors. It is possible, for example, that when a student proves that he or she has suffered harm from being removed from school, such harm may be caused by two factors: the violation of due process or the lawful and justified removal from school. If a student suffers emotional distress because he or she was suspended or expelled for legitimate and justified reasons without procedural due process, substantial damages will not be awarded, because the cause of the distress was a lawful removal from school.
On the basis of those findings, the court was of the opinion that Piphus and Brisco were entitled to damages because their due process rights were violated. However, if the students could not prove that their removal from school was unlawful or unjustified, they were entitled to only one dollar from school officials. The decision of the appellate court was reversed and the case remanded. (Only eight justices reviewed the case; Harry A. Blackmun was not involved in the consideration or decision.)
The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.
SUBSCRIBE
