Honig v. Doe

Background

This case involves two emotionally disturbed teenage students, their local school district in San Francisco, and the California Superintendent of Public Instruction. After violent or disruptive incidents tied to their disabilities, school officials suspended and proposed to expel them and extended suspensions indefinitely pending expulsion hearings. The students sued under the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), which guarantees a free appropriate public education and includes a “stay-put” rule requiring a child to remain in their current placement during any review. Lower courts enjoined unilateral exclusions and ordered relief; the State appealed to resolve whether schools may remove dangerous disabled students without parental or court approval.

Reasoning

The Court read the stay-put provision broadly and rejected a general “dangerousness” exception. It held that schools may not unilaterally change a disabled child’s placement during EHA review, though ordinary short-term discipline and temporary suspensions up to ten schooldays are allowed and other classroom controls may be used. Where parents refuse interim changes, school officials can seek prompt judicial relief, and courts can balance the child’s education rights against safety concerns. The Court modified the Ninth Circuit’s view by treating suspensions longer than ten days as prohibited “changes in placement.” The Court was equally divided on whether courts may force a State to provide services directly when local agencies fail to do so, leaving the lower-court ruling intact.

Real world impact

Schools must generally keep disabled students in their current programs while disputes proceed. Short emergency removals are limited; longer exclusions for disability-related conduct require parental agreement or judicial authorization. Parents, school officials, and judges will now play clearer roles when behavior stems from a child’s disability, and states may face obligations to ensure services when local districts do not.