## Facts

- Russell Carl Baker, a sixth-grade student at a North Carolina public school, was paddled (“two licks”) for allegedly violating a rule against throwing kickballs outside designated play periods.
- The teacher administered the paddling in the presence of another teacher and in view of other students.
- Before the incident, Russell’s mother, Virginia Baker, expressly told the principal and certain teachers that she did not consent to corporal punishment for her son, citing both principled opposition and concern that he was a “frail child.”
- The punishment was imposed under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115-146, authorizing school officials to use “reasonable force” to restrain or correct pupils and maintain order.
- The Bakers challenged the specific punishment and the statute’s constitutionality on parental-liberty, procedural due process, and Eighth Amendment grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether a parent’s Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in directing a child’s upbringing includes a right to forbid public-school corporal punishment, making a statute authorizing “reasonable force” unconstitutional as applied over parental objection.
2. Whether corporal punishment under the statute violates a student’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights absent specified procedural safeguards.
3. Whether the paddling inflicted on Russell Baker constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

## Decision

- The three-judge district court upheld the constitutionality of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115-146 and rejected the Bakers’ individual constitutional claims.
- The court held that parental liberty to control disciplinary methods is recognized but not absolute, and the state’s interest in maintaining school order permits reasonable corporal punishment despite parental objection.
- The court held that students have a liberty interest in avoiding arbitrary corporal punishment, requiring minimal procedural protections, and concluded the statute could be applied consistently with such safeguards.
- The court held the two-lick paddling, without lasting injury, did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
- The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Parental liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment include substantial authority over childrearing and discipline, but that authority may yield to a legitimate state interest in maintaining order and discipline in public schools.
- A statute authorizing reasonable school discipline is not unconstitutional merely because it permits corporal punishment over a parent’s objection, so long as the discipline remains reasonable.
- Corporal punishment in public schools implicates a student’s liberty interest; due process requires at least minimal safeguards to reduce arbitrariness and abuse (e.g., notice that certain conduct may trigger corporal punishment, administration with an adult witness, and an explanation upon parental request).
- Ordinary, non-severe school corporal punishment that causes no serious or lasting injury does not, on these facts, constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a state statute authorizing reasonable corporal punishment in public schools, holding that parental objections do not create an absolute constitutional veto, that only minimal procedural protections are required to protect students from arbitrary punishment, and that the paddling at issue did not violate the Eighth Amendment.


Baker v. Owen, 395 F. Supp. 294 (M.D.N.C. 1975)