Honig v. Doe (1988)
- Sam Shepherd
- Sep 23, 2024
- 3 min read
Updated: Oct 27, 2024
By Lauren Fantroy-Winston
Overview
In Honig v. Doe, the United States Supreme Court decided in 1988, that public schools may not unilaterally exclude disabled students from school for disruptive behavior related to their disabilities.
Summary
This case involved two students with emotional and behavioral disabilities who were indefinitely suspended by officials of the San Francisco Unified School District for misconduct related to their disabilities. The incidents included verbal and physical outbursts, choking another student, breaking a window, theft, extortion, and inappropriate sexual comments towards female classmates. (Honig v. Doe, 1988)
The students' parents filed a lawsuit against the school district in district court, arguing that the indefinite suspensions violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's (IDEA) stay-put provision, which prohibits changes in placement without due process. They also claimed the suspensions violated the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), which mandates educational services for disabled students.
The district court ruled in favor of the parents, ordering the students’ return to their educational placements. On appeal, the court upheld the decision, stating that the IDEA's stay-put provision did not allow for a dangerousness exception, invalidating California laws that permitted indefinite suspension or expulsion of disabled students. The case was subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Honig v. Doe, 1988)
The Supreme Court ruled that indefinite suspensions of students with disabilities for behavior linked to their disabilities were not permitted under the EHA. While schools could suspend disabled students for up to 10 days, they were required to continue providing educational services afterward. The Court emphasized that while schools are not without recourse for handling dangerous students, unilateral exclusion was not a permissible solution. (Honig v. Doe, 1988)
Impact
Public schools cannot unilaterally remove disabled students from the classroom due to dangerous or disruptive behavior stemming from their disabilities. Under the IDEA's stay-put provision, a disabled student must remain in their current educational placement during administrative or judicial review, unless the school and the student's parent or guardian mutually agree on a different arrangement. The law does not permit the suspension or expulsion of disabled students for behavior linked to their disabilities. Congress designed this provision to restrict the unilateral power of schools to exclude disabled students, ensuring that changes in placement can only occur with parental consent or a court's approval, without exceptions for emergencies involving dangerous students.
In conclusion, the Honig decision reinforced critical protections for disabled students under the EHA, restricting schools from excluding such students and requiring continued educational services, even when disciplining them for disability-related misconduct. This decision upheld the educational rights of disabled students.
Court Documents:
To read more about Brown v. Board of Education click here:Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686 (1954)
To read more about Steffel v. Thompson click here: Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 94 S. Ct. 1209 (1974)
To read more about United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty click here: United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 100 S. Ct. 1202 (1980)
To read more about the supersession by statute as stated in click here:
It is also worth noting that Honig was at least partially superseded by statute. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(G); H.R. Rep. No. 105-95, at 108-09 (1997). In its 1997 amendment and reauthorization of the IDEA, Congress added what the house report refers to as "two exceptions to the pendency provision." H.R. Rep. No. 105-95, at 108.
Citations:
