## Facts

- John Doe and Jack Smith were high school students in the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) eligible for special education as emotionally disturbed under the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA).
- Doe, whose disability impaired impulse control, choked a student after being teased and broke a window while being escorted to the principal’s office.
- SFUSD suspended Doe for five days, then continued his suspension pending expulsion proceedings, resulting in an indefinite suspension.
- Smith engaged in aggressive and disruptive misconduct; SFUSD similarly imposed an indefinite suspension pending expulsion proceedings.
- Both students alleged that indefinite suspension pending expulsion unlawfully changed their “then current educational placement” in violation of the EHA’s stay-put provision, which requires a child to remain in the current placement during review proceedings absent agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether Doe’s claim was moot because he was older than the EHA’s eligibility age, and whether Smith’s claim remained justiciable.
2. Whether the EHA stay-put provision prohibits a school district from unilaterally imposing an indefinite suspension (or otherwise excluding a student) for disability-related dangerous or disruptive conduct while review proceedings are pending.
3. Whether courts may order a change in placement notwithstanding stay-put, and whether the state educational agency must provide services directly when a local district fails.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court dismissed Doe’s claim as moot because he had aged out of EHA coverage.
- The Court held Smith’s claim was not moot, finding a reasonable likelihood of recurrence and that the dispute was capable of repetition yet evading review.
- The Court held the EHA stay-put provision bars school authorities from unilaterally removing a disabled child from the current educational placement for disability-related misconduct during pending proceedings.
- The Court indicated school officials may seek judicial relief to temporarily remove or change placement upon an adequate showing of likely injury.
- The Court affirmed that the state educational agency bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring required services if local authorities fail to provide them.

## Legal Principles

- Under the EHA stay-put provision, an eligible student generally must remain in the “then current educational placement” during administrative and judicial review unless parents and educational authorities agree otherwise.
- Indefinite suspension or other extended exclusion pending expulsion proceedings constitutes a prohibited unilateral change in placement when based on conduct related to the student’s disability.
- The EHA does not grant schools a broad unilateral dangerousness exception; safety-related removals must proceed through the statute’s procedures or by court order.
- Courts may issue equitable relief altering placement when necessary, including temporary removal upon a showing that maintaining the current placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others.
- A state receiving EHA funds retains ultimate responsibility to ensure a free appropriate public education and must provide services directly when local districts default.

## Conclusion

Honig held that the EHA’s stay-put rule prevents schools from unilaterally imposing long-term or indefinite removals for disability-related misconduct during pending proceedings; officials must use statutory procedures or obtain court-ordered relief, and the state remains accountable for ensuring required educational services when local districts fail.


Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)