## Facts

- Five Bowie High School students wore “maroonish or reddish” shirts that school administrators believed displayed gang insignia.
- The school suspended each student for three days and threatened expulsion, asserting the shirts indicated “gang-related activities.”
- The students alleged they were suspended without meaningful notice of the charges and without a fair opportunity to explain or contest the accusations before discipline was imposed.
- The students and their parents sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting several constitutional claims; only the procedural due process claim regarding the suspensions remained.
- The remaining claim proceeded primarily against the principal, Kent Ewing, in his individual capacity; the district stayed in the case only for limited injunctive relief related to school records.

## Issues

1. On an interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment, whether the court of appeals may review fact-bound disputes about what process the students received.
2. Assuming plaintiffs’ version of disputed facts, whether the principal violated clearly established procedural due process requirements for short-term school suspensions under *Goss v. Lopez*.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit exercised jurisdiction only over the legal qualified-immunity question and declined to revisit the magistrate judge’s determination that genuine issues of material fact existed.
- Accepting plaintiffs’ version of events for purposes of the appeal, the court held that *Goss* clearly established the minimal procedures required before suspending a student for ten days or less.
- The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity for the principal because a reasonable school official would have known that imposing a three-day suspension without *Goss*-compliant notice and an opportunity to respond violated procedural due process.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the surviving procedural due process claim; the court did not resolve the merits of any record-correction injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Interlocutory review of qualified-immunity denials is limited to abstract legal questions; appellate courts generally lack jurisdiction to decide whether the summary-judgment record presents genuine disputes of fact.
- For short-term school suspensions (ten days or less), procedural due process requires, before the suspension: (1) oral or written notice of the charges; (2) if denied, an explanation of the evidence; and (3) an opportunity for the student to present their side, typically through an informal discussion.
- Qualified immunity is unavailable at the summary-judgment stage when, taking plaintiffs’ facts as true, the official’s conduct would violate a clearly established constitutional right.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity because, given unresolved factual disputes and assuming the students were suspended without the minimal notice-and-response process required by *Goss*, the principal’s conduct would have violated clearly established procedural due process for short-term suspensions.


Meyer v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 161 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 1998)