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
G. v. Sayreville Bd. of Educ.
333 F.3d 417 (3d Cir. 2003) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55363
Description
Kindergartner’s Suspension for Threatening Statements Does Not Violate First or Fourteenth Amendment, Third Circuit Holds
Abstract
The Third Circuit held that a kindergartner’s First Amendment
rights were not violated when he was suspended for three days for
saying “I’m going to shoot you” to his friends
during school recess. Other students at the school had been
suspended following incidents of verbal threats of violence and
references to guns. The principal visited each class to discuss the
seriousness of such incidents and in letters asked parents to
discuss the issue with students and notified them that statements
referring to violence or weapons would lead to immediate
disciplinary action. Appellant and other students referred to
weapons and shooting one another while playing during recess; all
were suspended. Appellant’s father, suing under Section 1983,
alleged denial of constitutional rights to free speech, procedural
due process, and equal protection. The district court granted
defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Third Circuit,
considering first whether plaintiff’s allegations would
establish the violation of a constitutional right, reviewed U.S.
Supreme Court decisions regarding the speech rights of students in
a school setting. The Third Circuit (1) found that the necessary
balance between the student’s rights and the school’s
role in fostering “socially appropriate behavior”
tilted in favor of the school; (2) said that defendants were
entitled to qualified immunity absent any clearly established law
to the contrary; (3) emphasized the importance of the
student’s young age (“a school’s authority to
control student speech in an elementary school setting is
undoubtedly greater than in a high school setting”); and (4)
said that, regarding the procedural due process claim, the
principal’s meeting with students before the suspension
fulfilled the requirements of due process under Goss v.
Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).
