## Facts

- Victoria Laney, an eighth-grade student at a Tennessee public middle school, had her cell phone ring during class.
- A teacher confiscated the phone under the school district’s code of conduct governing personal communication devices.
- The code mandated two first-offense sanctions: a thirty-day confiscation of the phone and a one-day in-school suspension (ISS).
- Victoria served the one-day ISS on school premises and was required to remain academically active and complete schoolwork.
- No pre-deprivation notice or opportunity to be heard was provided to Victoria or her parents before the ISS; her parents learned of the ISS after it occurred.
- Victoria’s father sued the school board and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the one-day ISS (and related discipline) violated procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether a one-day in-school suspension implicates a constitutionally protected property interest in public education requiring procedural due process.
2. Whether a one-day in-school suspension implicates a constitutionally protected liberty interest in reputation (including “stigma-plus”) requiring procedural due process.
3. Whether, even if an interest is implicated, a one-day in-school suspension is a de minimis deprivation insufficient to trigger due process protections.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss the § 1983 procedural due process claim.
- The court held that a one-day ISS, where the student remains in school and completes academic work, does not deprive the student of a constitutionally protected property interest in public education.
- The court held that the ISS did not constitute a cognizable liberty-interest deprivation based on reputational harm.
- The court held, alternatively, that a one-day ISS is de minimis and therefore does not require federal due process procedures.
- The case was remanded for dismissal of the federal procedural due process claim consistent with the court’s holding.

## Legal Principles

- Procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment applies only when the state deprives a person of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest.
- A student’s property interest in public education concerns access to the educational process; short-term discipline that does not exclude the student from school and academic activity may not amount to a constitutional deprivation.
- A reputational liberty-interest claim generally requires “stigma plus” (reputational harm coupled with a change in legal status or comparable tangible alteration), not mere displeasure with school discipline.
- De minimis deprivations do not trigger constitutional due process requirements.
- A § 1983 claim fails absent a deprivation of a federal right, even if school officials did not provide advance notice or a hearing.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit concluded that a one-day in-school suspension requiring continued attendance and academic work, even if imposed without advance notice or a hearing, does not amount to a constitutionally cognizable deprivation of property or liberty and is, in any event, de minimis; therefore, the student’s § 1983 procedural due process claim could not proceed.


Laney v. Farley, 501 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2007)