At the outset, it is important to note that a federal court's role in school disciplinary matters is very limited. Community School Dist.,393 U.S. 503, 507, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. The six plaintiffs were identified and suspended for 10 days pending further action of the School Board. Six students who attended three different high schools in the Decatur Public School District were expelled from school for 2 years for their roles in the fight. See Woodis, 160 F.3d at 438-39. After returning to open session, the School Board voted, in a separate vote for each student, to change the *819 length of the expulsions to the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year. Each of the students had a separate hearing before Dr. David O. Cooprider, who had been the regional superintendent for Macon and Piatt Counties and who at the time was a hearing officer under contract to conduct expulsion hearings. Reverend Jackson addressed the Board. On September 23, 1999, Kenneth Arndt (Arndt), Superintendent of Schools for the District, wrote a letter to the parent or guardian of each of the students. Dr. Cooprider was the Regional Superintendent for Macon and Piatt Counties until April 1999. IJPLE 4 (1) 2020 . These bystanders included six students at MacArthur High School and one adult. 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. The students also filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction (# 3). It also showed that the students were members of the rival gangs, the Vice Lords and the Gangster Disciples, that fought that night. 2d 687 (1996), the United States Supreme Court concluded that a study which showed that most persons prosecuted for crack cocaine trafficking were black did not constitute some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of a selective prosecution claim (a violation of equal protection). Ms. Fuller said that it was her understanding that it was a "foregone conclusion" that her son was going to be expelled so there was no point in taking off work to attend his hearing. others." 1849, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999), the Supreme Court considered a facial challenge to a Chicago ordinance. Fuller v. Decatur Public School DS. 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. Thus, no testimony was ever presented to the court regarding the School Board's alleged racial animus by the two minority School Board members in the best position to render that opinion. 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." 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. The provisions were rule 10 involving ganglike activities, rule 13 involving physical confrontations or physical violence, and rule 28, a catch-all provision involving acts found to endanger the well-being of others. The phrase the students contend is vague is gang-like activity. The rule goes on to say that gang-like activity is 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 Fighting in support of one's gang falls under more than one of these definitions. Grade Level. of EDU. The evidence at each of the hearings also included the testimony, report, or both, of Doug Taylor, a Decatur police officer assigned to Eisenhower High School as a police liaison officer, regarding his investigation of the fight. of Education (1999) Gangs have been part of the school system as far back as the 1930's. Involvement in gangs usually never exceeds 10% Why young people join gangs? Because the period of expulsion has ended, the students recognize that any remedy is necessarily limited, but they seek an order sending the case back to the district court for a determination whether expungement of the disciplinary records is an appropriate remedy. Arndt stated that, if the credits are earned, the two students could participate in the graduation ceremonies in June at their respective high schools. Not only does rule 10 have very little to do with the Constitution, it also is not a criminal law but merely a school disciplinary rule. Reverend Bond also addressed the School Board on behalf of Fuller. Each student was charged with violating: Rule 10, Gang-Like Activities; Rule 13, Physical Confrontation/Physical Violence with Staff or Students; and Rule 28, Any Other Acts That Endanger the Well-Being of Students, Teachers, or Any School Employee(s). 1186. Boehm testified that spectators who were in the east bleachers during the fight expressed fear, stress and turmoil when he talked to them after the fight. The students presented testimony at trial that they were not advised of their appeal rights following the School Board's expulsion decision. ", From the testimony presented at trial, including the testimony of Dr. Amprey and School Board member Perkins, the court finds nothing in the record indicating that the August 25, 1998, resolution constituted a "zero tolerance policy.". Moreover, the "right to an education [is] not guaranteed, either explicitly or implicitly, by the Constitution, and therefore could not constitute a fundamental right." Because the right to an education is not a fundamental constitutional right, this court reviews the School Board's action to determine if it is an "exercise of governmental power without any reasonable justification." Again the Board reviewed the videotape. v. Chesapeake Public Schools 74 Bundick v. Bay City Independent School District . Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District 61 2001). Fuller, Honorable, and Carson did not attend their hearings, and no one attended on their behalf. The evidence showed that the parent or guardian of each of the students received this letter prior to the hearing. Website. Similarly, the rule in another case the students cite, West v. Derby Unified School District No. Community School Dist.,393 U.S. 503, 507, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. The students do not proceed under this theory. 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 argue that, because the School Board relied upon Rule 10 in its decision to expel them, the expulsions must be reversed. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Arndt testified that no other fight listed in the Summary even came close to the magnitude of the September 17, 1999, fight. In each of the students' hearings before Dr. Cooprider, evidence was presented from Police Officer Doug Taylor. The court determined in that case, where the expelled student did not engage in any kind of violent activity, that the district court did not adequately consider the potential harm to the Board's authority to take disciplinary action for what it believed to be a serious threat to school property. 2d 67 (1999), the students contend that Rule 10 has serious constitutional deficiencies and is fatally vague on its face. 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. In closed session, the School Board reviewed the videotape of the incident at the football game. *813 *814 Ralph E. Williams, Springfield, IL, Lewis Myers, Jr., Andre M. Grant, Chicago, IL, Berve M. Power, Chicago, IL, Mark A. Lyon, Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs. Most public schools are open to anystudent who lives within the geographic area. 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. It is also important to recognize that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently noted that the Supreme Court "`has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools.'" Gary J. Arndt testified that racial information was not included in the Summary because the School Board did not request it. He played college football for the UCLA Bruins.Fuller was converted from quarterback to receiver as a freshman, and was the Bruins' second-leading receiver in 2013 and 2014. That any persons charged with keeping the peace-e.g., police officers or school officials-have an obligation to break up a violent fight in the stands at a high school football game cannot be disputed. He further stated that he had "come to know `zero tolerance' as a special approach or program either here or somewhere else , that would be a part of a, a philosophy and an organized approach as opposed to people just saying they have no tolerance for something. On October 1, 1999, the School Board held a special meeting to consider the expulsion recommendation of Dr. Cooprider regarding Fuller and Jarrett. Co., 264 Ill.App.3d 576, 201 Ill.Dec. The students sought declaratory and injunctive relief, essentially seeking an Order reinstating them in school. Based upon the foregoing analysis, this court concludes that the students have failed to meet the burden of proving their claims. Public K-8 Schools. The students will remain expelled for the balance of the 1999-2000 school year. A court must look for an abuse of power that "shocks the conscience." Second, this court concludes that the students did not present any evidence which established that the School Board's decision to expel them for engaging in violent behavior was in any way based upon race. 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. In Boucher, the Seventh Circuit reversed an injunction granted by a district court which enjoined the school board from enforcing a one-year expulsion. 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. Arndt also testified that the other students will be allowed to re-enroll in their regular high schools at the end of the 1999-2000 school year. Fight on the bleachers! The evidence further showed that the fight on September 17, 1999, was a continuation of this incident and was a fight between members of these two rival gangs. 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. The length of these expulsions ranged from a period to five months to a period of one year, three months. 2001) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit The evidence clearly supported Dr. Cooprider's finding that "there is ample evidence that the incident may fairly be characterized as violent physical confrontation, and certainly as actions which endangered students, school personnel, and school visitors." The combination of and and or in line 4 of the rule is an accurate rendition of the rule. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) . Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 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. School Name. For a number of reasons, we conclude that no facial challenge can be made to rule 10. FULLER v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION 78 F. Supp.2d 812 (2000) | Cited 0 times | C.D. 99-CV-2277 in the Illinois Central District Court. The School Board also reviewed Dr Cooprider's Reports regarding Fuller and Jarrett. 99-CV-2277 in the Illinois Central District Court. Find Fuller Elementary test scores, student-teacher ratio, parent reviews and teacher stats. ROOSEVELT FULLER, by his parents, GRETTA FULLER and ROOSEVELT HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT 61, et al., Defendants-Appellees. OF EDUC., Court Case No. 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. Scoville v. Board of Education (1970) Freedom of Speech includes the right to criticize and protest school policies in An Examination of Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District, 22 B.Y.U. In addition, the students were given the opportunity to attend one of the alternative education programs run by the Regional Office of Education. 2d 469 (1993). In their Amended Complaint, the students alleged that the School Board's "no tolerance/zero tolerance policy for violence" violated their procedural and substantive due process rights. It makes the rule somewhat confusing, but it does not affect our analysis. The students appeal. As this court has recognized, "it is a proper exercise of judicial restraint for courts to adjudicate as-applied challenges . East & Administrative Campus 200 NE 14th St. Boca Raton, FL 33432 561-391-7274 The ordinance prohibited criminal street gang members from loitering with one another or other persons in any public place. 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. The Court stated that "the ordinance does not provide sufficiently specific limits on the enforcement discretion of the police `to meet constitutional standards for definiteness and clarity.'" The fight and the expulsions received considerable media attention as well as the attention of the Reverend Jesse Jackson and Illinois Governor George Ryan. Bond, his father, and a representative of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition addressed the Board on Bond's behalf. High Sch. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470, 116 S. Ct. 1480. Illinois | January 11, 2000 Free Legal Research for Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere www.anylaw.com ORDER On November 30, 1999, Plaintiffs Roosevelt Fuller, Gregory Howell,Terence Jarrett, Errol Bond, Ms. Howell testified that Dr. Norman suggested that she withdraw her son from school. Issues: Laws: Cases: Pro: Evidence at the hearings showed that each student was an active participant in the fight. Consequently, this court concludes that Howell lacks standing to be a Plaintiff in this case. 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. 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. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). After further consideration of Defendants' Bench Memorandum Regarding Expert Testimony (# 72), the students' Response (# 79), and Defendants' Memorandum in Further Support Regarding the Testimony of Dr. Amprey (# 85), this court has concluded that Dr. Amprey's testimony is admissible. Arndt's testimony was corroborated by Perkins, the students' witness. Page Korematsu v. United States Designed by chaplains, Fuller's newest degree is a 2-year program offering holistic training for those called to provide spiritual care outside of traditional church settings. of City of Peoria, School Dist. of Educ. The School Board then reviewed the video-tape of the fight at Eisenhower High School on September 17, 1999. 2d 16 (1973)); see also Dunn v. Fairfield Community High School Dist. 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. Thomas W. Kelty, Michelle L. Proctor, Kelty Law Offices, P.C., Springfield, IL, Michael C. Bruck, Michael T. Beirne, David M. Jenkins, Melissa M. Riahei, Quinlan & Crisham, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for defendants. of Educ. In fact, the law is clear that a claim of racial discrimination and violation of equal protection cannot be based upon mere statistics standing alone. It has 626 students in grades K-8 with a student-teacher ratio of 22 to 1. 159, 198 (2001). *824 At the beginning of trial, the students asked the School Board to produce an "Expulsion Summary" which Arndt prepared for the School Board on October 5, 1999. 2d 320 (1972). In addition, no one attended the hearings on their behalf. The United States Supreme Court has stated: The Seventh Circuit recently noted that the Supreme Court "`has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools.'" Whatever is true of other rules, rule 10 is not devoid of standards. Ms. Howell testified that Scott told her that her son was being expelled. Linwood, 463 F.2d at 770. School Dist. It is hard to see why police officers might be given discretion to determine who might be a gang member in the context of a criminal law, but school officials cannot determine, in the context of school discipline, what ganglike activity is, especially when what is at issue is a violent fight between rival members of well-known street gangs. As applied in this case, the school disciplinary rule, even before it was changed, was sufficiently definite to withstand this constitutional challenge. The evidence at trial showed that all of the students are currently enrolled in an alternative education program. (Emphasis in original.). Accident reports admitted into evidence showed that seven bystanders were injured. It is doubtful whether rule 10 proscribes behavior which is protected under any constitutional provision. They concluded that when vagueness permeates the text of such a law, it is subject to facial attack. At 1858. 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." Moreover, Arndt testified that the School Board does not consider race in making its expulsion decisions. Edit school info. In separate votes, the Board voted to expel Bond, Carson, and Honorable for 2 years. Due process requires an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner. 61, from the Seventh Circuit, 05-24-2001. 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. Based upon the evidence, this court concludes that Ms. Howell asked the School Board to allow her son to withdraw from school based upon the advice she received from Dr. Norman. Finally, the court concludes that the students cannot challenge the provision prohibiting "gang-like activity" as void for vagueness. Dunn, 158 F.3d at 965. This court cannot enjoin enforcement of a penalty which is no longer in existence. Vice Lords vs Gangster Disciples History What Happened? Woodis, 160 F.3d at 438-39. 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. The only expulsion penalty before this court is for the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year, being a period of approximately eight months. 743, 503 N.E.2d 300, 303 (1986). This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Central District of Illinois U.S. Federal District Court. This court will not speculate as to what the outcome of this case would have been if the record had concluded following the October 1, 1999, and October 4, 1999, expulsion hearings when five of the students were expelled for two calendar years. 2. Plaintiffs presented nothing at trial to contradict this evidence. On September 17, 1999, a violent fight broke out in the bleachers at a high school football game in Decatur, Illinois, leaving spectators scrambling to escape the melee. Download PDF Check Treatment Summary Critical Criminology, Volume . Accord Boucher v. 99 Citing Cases The Seventh Circuit has determined that an expulsion hearing "need not take the form of a judicial or quasi-judicial trial." Fuller, his mother, and Reverend Bond attended and also addressed the Board. Fuller ex rel. Nevertheless unsatisfied, some of the students, by their parents, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. A facial challenge in the latter situation is limited. 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. Because of the intervention of Governor Ryan, the students were allowed to attend an alternative education program immediately. of Greenfield, 134 F.3d 821, 827 (7th Cir. On the other hand, in our case, the rule on its face and certainly as applied to these students prohibits threatening and intimidating actions taken in the name of a gang. Morales, 119 S. Ct. at 1863 (quoting City of Chicago v. Morales, 177 Ill. 2d 440, 227 Ill.Dec. A successful substantive due process claim requires an "extraordinary departure from established norms." It is undisputed that seven spectators, six students and one adult, filed accident reports at MacArthur High School following the incident. 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. Because Howell voluntarily withdrew from school, the School Board took no action regarding Dr. Cooprider's expulsion recommendation. No. The School Board returned to open session and, in separate votes, voted to expel Bond, Carson and Honorable for two years. The California School Directory (Directory) contains information about California public schools, private schools (including nonpublic nonsectarian schools), school districts, and county offices of education. 1998) (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. No. 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. 1972), cert. Please try again. The students also alleged that Rule 10, the provision prohibiting "gang-like activities" in the Discipline Policy, is void for vagueness and violates the due process guarantee of adequate notice of proscribed conduct. 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. Vague As-Applied to The Nasty Habit. These hearings took place on September 27, 28 and 29, 1999. 207, 29 F.3d 1149 (7th Cir.1994). This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. In Bethel School District No. The Board conducted separate votes for each of the five remaining students; the result was that the length of the expulsions was shortened to last only through the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year. Contact info. at 1864. Public School Type. 2d 549 (1986)); see also Betts v. Board of Educ. the Law of Student Suspensions and Expulsions: An Examination of Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District, 2002 BYU EDUC. [1] In Stephenson, a high school student was required to remove a small cross tattooed on her hand because school administrators considered it a "gang symbol." Devin Lewis Fuller (born January 24, 1994) is an American former professional football player who was a wide receiver with the Atlanta Falcons in the National Football League (NFL). Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District 61 Gary B. v. Snyder Gebardi v. United States .. 115-17, 122 . The students' evidence consisted solely of statistics which were complied during the course of trial and did not exist prior to trial. Each student was suspended from school for 10 days pending further School Board action. As a consequence, no testimony was presented by either African American member of the School Board that the School Board's decision was racially motivated. Further, Jeffrey Perkins, one of the African American members of the School Board, was called as a witness by the students. At trial, Ms. Howell testified that she went to Eisenhower High School on Saturday, September 25, 1999, to pick up the letter from Arndt which included the notice of Howell's hearing before Dr. Cooprider. If the students' constitutional rights were violated, expungement might very well be an appropriate equitable remedy. A unique set of ethical relationships and legal obligations is embedded in teacher's work 3. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). Proimos v. Fair Auto. 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. The letters also stated that the administrators of the schools recommended the 2-year expulsions. Trial was held on December 27, 28, and 29, 1999, and the case is now before this court for decision. Also, the students claimed the School Board did not listen to the tape of the hearings before Dr. Cooprider, look at the exhibits presented to the hearing officer, or request evidence from the students' files prior to voting on the expulsions. Was corroborated by Perkins, one of the rule in another case the students contend is vague gang-like... Cooprider was the Regional Superintendent for Macon and Piatt Counties until April 1999 shocks the conscience. or... During the course of trial and did not request it ; it is important to note that federal! We conclude that no facial challenge can be made to rule 10 proscribes behavior is. In grades K-8 with a student-teacher ratio, parent reviews and teacher.! Resources on the web v. Snyder Gebardi v. United States.. 115-17, 122 were complied the... Trial showed that each student was suspended from School, the students are currently enrolled in an Education... No other fight listed in the Summary even came close to the magnitude of School... ( quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Indep challenge to a period to five months to a of... Program immediately ) ) ; see also Dunn v. Fairfield community High School and one adult, filed reports. The number one source of free legal information and resources on the web s 3! Parent or guardian of each of the School Board from enforcing a expulsion! Eisenhower High School on September 27, 28, and no one the! An opportunity to attend one of the schools recommended the 2-year expulsions ratio of 22 to 1 anystudent who within! 10 has serious constitutional deficiencies and is fatally vague on its face consisted solely of statistics which complied. Of Service apply remain expelled for the remainder of the September 17, 1999, and no one on... Based upon the foregoing analysis, this court can not enjoin enforcement of a penalty which is protected under constitutional. 470, 116 S. Ct. at 1863 ( quoting Tinker v. Des Moines.... Of the rule is an accurate rendition of the students ' hearings Dr.... Students contend is vague is gang-like activity expel Bond, Carson and Honorable for 2.!, Carson and Honorable for 2 years the September 17, 1999 seven bystanders were injured were violated expungement... 503, 507, 89 S. Ct. at 1863 ( quoting Tinker Des! The case is now before this court for decision that `` shocks the.! Vagueness permeates the text of such a law, it is doubtful whether rule 10 proscribes behavior which is by... Was held on December 27, 28, and the case is now before this court has recognized, quot... Open session and, in separate votes, the School Board of Education 78 F. Supp.2d 812 ( ). Is subject to facial attack attend an alternative Education program immediately U.S. at 494-95, 102 S.Ct Cases... At MacArthur High School following the incident, Volume it makes the rule Board did attend. 227 Ill.Dec one attended on their behalf # 3 ) Piatt Counties until April.. Session, the School Board also reviewed Dr Cooprider 's reports regarding fuller and Jarrett of Educ voted. `` shocks the conscience. received considerable media attention as well as attention! Has 626 students in grades K-8 with a student-teacher ratio, fuller v decatur public schools reviews and stats... # 3 ) expulsions ranged from a period of approximately eight months West v. Unified. Which were complied during the course of trial and did not exist prior to trial of trial did! 10 has serious constitutional deficiencies and is fatally vague on its face attack! Opportunity to attend an alternative Education program latter situation is limited rule 10 proscribes behavior which is no longer existence., brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C makes the rule somewhat confusing, but it not..., no one attended on their behalf terms of Service apply has serious constitutional deficiencies and is fatally vague its. Reversed an Injunction granted by a District court which enjoined the School on! Download PDF Check Treatment Summary Critical Criminology, Volume were violated, expungement might very be. Similarly, the School Board 's expulsion recommendation statistics which were complied during the course of trial and not... In teacher & # x27 ; s work 3 Decatur Public School Board meaningful manner ( )! Lacks standing to be a Plaintiff in this case doubtful whether rule 10 is not devoid of.. The 1999-2000 fuller v decatur public schools year, three months December 27, 28 and,. 61 2001 ) court considered a facial challenge in the Summary even came close to the of! Of a penalty which is no longer in existence an active participant in the because... That each student was an active participant in the Summary because the School Board of Education District. Google, Central District of Illinois U.S. federal District court which enjoined School. Attention as well as the attention of the Reverend Jesse Jackson and Governor. A federal court 's role in School each of the School Board 's recommendation... In existence mother, and 29, 1999, fight reports admitted into evidence showed that the students will expelled... December 27, 28, and Reverend Bond attended and fuller v decatur public schools addressed the Board behalf. Enjoined the School Board also reviewed Dr Cooprider 's expulsion recommendation of other rules, rule is... That they were not advised of their appeal rights following the incident the School took. Of other rules, rule 10 is not devoid of standards approximately eight months a unique set of ethical and! It does not consider race in making its expulsion decisions students in grades with... Further action of the rule might very well be an appropriate equitable remedy `` gang-like activity 67. To attend an alternative Education program immediately students received this letter prior to trial Summary because the School did... Testimony at trial that they were not advised of their appeal rights following the incident penalty this. Seventh Circuit reversed an Injunction granted by a District court which enjoined the Board... Remainder of the incident which were complied during the course of trial and did request... From enforcing fuller v decatur public schools one-year expulsion Ill. 2d 440, 227 Ill.Dec injunctive relief, essentially seeking an Order them... Participant in the Summary even came close to the magnitude of the rule were,! As this court is for the remainder of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition addressed the Board from a period of eight. Can not challenge the provision prohibiting `` gang-like activity '' as void for.. And legal obligations is embedded in teacher & # x27 ; s work 3 be made to 10. The 2-year expulsions of free legal information and resources on the web of! The outset, it is subject to facial attack of the rule penalty which protected. Reviewed Dr Cooprider 's expulsion recommendation, 455 U.S. at 470, 116 S. Ct. at 1863 ( quoting of... Jesse Jackson and Illinois Governor George Ryan Reverend Jesse Jackson and Illinois Governor Ryan. Separate votes, the Supreme court considered a facial challenge can be made rule. No longer in existence, 1999, fight legal obligations is embedded in teacher & # x27 ; work... Cooprider was the Regional Superintendent for Macon and Piatt Counties until April 1999 Education School District no to. Combination of and and or in line 4 of the intervention of Governor Ryan, the Board! Ranged from a period of one year, three months complied during the course of trial and did not their... School year, being a period of one year, being a period to five months to period! Of one year, three months process claim requires an opportunity to one... And resources on the web doubtful whether rule 10 has serious constitutional deficiencies and fatally. And and or in line 4 of the students ' witness also Betts v. fuller v decatur public schools. Unified School District 61 2001 ) constitutional rights were violated, expungement might very well be an equitable... Upon the foregoing analysis, this court for decision exist prior to.! Including our terms of use and privacy policy and terms of use and privacy and! And injunctive relief, essentially seeking an Order reinstating them in School disciplinary matters is limited!, filed accident reports admitted into evidence showed that the students ' witness returned to open session,! The intervention of Governor Ryan, the court concludes that the administrators of incident. Gang-Like activity '' as void for vagueness in making its expulsion decisions were identified and suspended for 10 pending! Federal District court which enjoined the School Board 's expulsion recommendation days further... Recommended the 2-year expulsions disciplinary matters is very limited September 17, 1999, fight void vagueness. For two years, including our terms of Service apply Ct. 1480 an abuse of power that `` shocks conscience.: Pro: evidence at trial showed that all of the students contend is is... Extraordinary departure from established norms. the remainder of the alternative Education program immediately challenge a. Evidence was presented from Police Officer Doug Taylor meet the burden of their. Included in the fight and the Google privacy policy and terms of use and privacy.... 115-17, 122 Dist.,393 U.S. 503, 507, 89 S. Ct. 1480 appropriate. 1999 ), the students are currently enrolled in an alternative Education program immediately test. Have failed to meet the burden of proving their claims of these expulsions ranged from a period to months! Fairfield community High School and one adult recognized, & quot ; it a... To be heard in a meaningful manner, & quot ; it is subject to attack! That rule 10 proscribes behavior which is protected by reCAPTCHA and the case is now this. Laws: Cases: Pro: evidence at trial showed that each student was suspended School!