Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Carey v. Piphus | 435 U.S. 247 (1978)

Beginning in the 1970s, the United States Supreme Court decided a series of cases in which the Court held that people’s procedural due-process rights had been violated in a variety of ways concerning their property interests and liberty interests. What is the remedy for such a constitutional violation? In particular, when may compensatory money damages be recovered? The Court addressed this issue in Carey versus Piphus.

Jarius Piphus attended a public high school in Chicago. His principal encountered Piphus and a friend appearing to be smoking what the principal believed was marijuana. The principal ordered the assistant principal to impose the standard sanction of a twenty-day suspension for use of illegal drugs. The students denied smoking marijuana, but the assistant principal suspended them. School officials later met with the Piphus and his mother. School officials refused to hold a hearing on the factual question of whether Piphus had been smoking marijuana and, instead, merely provided the reason for Piphus’s suspension.

Silas Brisco attended a public elementary school in Chicago. One day, he came to school wearing a small earring, in violation of the school’s rule prohibiting male students from wearing earrings. The rule was in place because the principal believed that earrings worn by male students were a gang sign. Brisco refused to remove his earring because he said it was a sign of black pride, not gang affiliation. Brisco was suspended for 20 days without any type of pre-suspension hearing.

The Piphuses and Briscoes filed civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against school officials in the United States District Court in Chicago. Both alleged that the boys’ suspensions without a pre-suspension hearing violated procedural due process. Both sought compensatory money damages. Their cases were consolidated for trial. The district court held that the two suspensions violated the boys’ procedural due-process rights. The court refused to award compensatory damages, however, after finding that there was no evidence of any compensable injuries caused by the constitutional violations. The court dismissed their complaints. The Piphuses and Briscoes appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appeals court held that the boys were entitled to recover substantial compensatory damages simply based on the denial of their procedural due-process rights. The Court of Appeals remanded to the district court to determine such damages.

School officials, including Chicago School Board President John Carey, successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the boys’ cases.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть