## Facts

- Arthur Nickolas Newsome, a 16-year-old student at Batavia High School (Ohio), was accused by the principal of possessing and offering to sell a marijuana cigarette on school property.
- Newsome denied the accusation and requested the identities of the accusing students; the principal refused to identify them.
- A school representative informed Newsome that the principal intended to suspend him for ten days based on the allegation.
- A hearing was held before the superintendent with Newsome, his mother, a juvenile-court representative, and the principal present; the principal summarized the student accusations without revealing informant identities.
- The superintendent expelled Newsome for the remainder of the semester.
- Newsome appealed to the local board of education; his attorney was not permitted to question the superintendent or principal about the evidence, and cross-examination of informants was not allowed.
- During the board’s closed deliberations, the superintendent provided additional information about the accusations and informants that had not been presented in the open hearing and had not been disclosed to Newsome.
- The board unanimously affirmed the expulsion.
- Newsome sued in federal district court seeking injunctive relief, readmission, procedural reforms, and damages for alleged Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process violations.
- The district court denied preliminary relief and dismissed the case on the merits; Newsome appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Newsome had standing to seek broad declaratory and injunctive relief requiring changes to the school district’s disciplinary procedures.
2. Whether due process required allowing Newsome to cross-examine student informants or school officials in connection with the expulsion.
3. Whether the involvement of the principal and superintendent in the board’s process denied Newsome an impartial decision-maker.
4. Whether due process was violated when the board considered material evidence presented in closed deliberations that was not disclosed to Newsome.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The court held Newsome lacked standing to pursue some requested broad prospective relief aimed at general disciplinary procedures.
- The court held due process did not require cross-examination of student informants or school officials in these expulsion proceedings.
- The court held the administrators’ participation did not, without evidence of bias, establish a denial of an impartial tribunal.
- The court held the board violated due process by considering adverse information introduced during closed deliberations that Newsome had not been told and could not answer.

## Legal Principles

- Public school students facing expulsion have protected interests triggering procedural due process, requiring notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond.
- In school discipline, due process does not necessarily include the right to identify and cross-examine student informants; schools may limit such procedures to protect students and avoid administrative burdens.
- An impartial decision-maker is required, but participation by school administrators in the process is not unconstitutional absent a showing of bias or a substantial risk of bias.
- A school board may not base an expulsion decision on material adverse evidence that was not disclosed to the student; reliance on undisclosed, ex parte information defeats the opportunity to be heard.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld the school district’s refusal to permit cross-examination and rejected a bias claim based solely on administrator participation, but ruled that procedural due process was violated when the board considered undisclosed evidence presented during closed deliberations, reversing the dismissal to that extent.


Newsome v. Batavia Loc. Sch. Dist., 842 F.2d 920 (6th Cir. 1988)