Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Fuller v. Decatur Public School
251 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53837
Description
Seventh Circuit Concludes That School Rule Prohibiting “Ganglike Activity” and Specifying Covered Conduct Is Constitutional
Abstract
Affirming the district court’s decision, the Seventh Circuit
concluded that a school disciplinary rule prohibiting
“ganglike activity” and delineating specific conduct
covered by the rule could withstand a constitutional challenge.
Plaintiff-appellants—six students who were members of rival
street gangs—had a violent fight in the bleachers at a high
school football game. After separate hearings, students were found
to have violated rule 10, which prohibited “ganglike
activities,” and expelled from school for two years; these
expulsions were later shortened and students were allowed to attend
an alternative education program immediately. Students brought a
Section 1983 action against defendant-appellee school district.
They alleged that their constitutional rights were violated because
rule 10 was void for vagueness. At trial, the court ruled for
school district. On appeal, students sought a ruling that the
prohibition against “ganglike activity” was facially
unconstitutional because it lacked clear definitions of what
conduct was prohibited. The rule defined “ganglike
activity” as conduct engaged in “on behalf of any
gang,” “to perpetuate the existence of any gang,”
“to effect the common purpose” of a gang, or “to
represent a gang affiliation, loyalty or membership,” and the
court found that fighting in support of one’s gang fell under
more than one of these definitions. Finding it doubtful that rule
10 proscribed behavior that was protected under any constitutional
provision and that the rule was not unconstitutional as applied to
students, the court concluded that no facial challenge could be
made to rule 10. Because rule 10 was not a criminal law but merely
a school disciplinary rule, it did not need to be as detailed as a
criminal code that imposed criminal sanctions.
