## Facts

- Daniel K. Palmer, a high school senior and varsity football starter, used a school radio station after hours to complete a course assignment with other students.
- The next morning, staff found evidence of alcohol and marijuana use at the station.
- Palmer admitted to school officials that he consumed beer and smoked marijuana at the station.
- A school disciplinarian imposed a 10-day out-of-school suspension; Palmer and his parents did not pursue administrative review of that sanction.
- The student handbook authorized a 10-day suspension for drug or alcohol use; athletic participation was conditioned on “good school citizenship” under athletic-program policy.
- After consulting school officials and contacting drug-counseling agencies, the superintendent imposed an additional 60-day suspension from extracurricular activities, including interscholastic football.
- Palmer’s father spoke informally at a Board of Education meeting about the proposed athletic suspension; the board declined to intervene.
- After state administrative proceedings, Palmer filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection violations; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether a student has a protected property or liberty interest in participating in interscholastic athletics requiring additional due process before a 60-day extracurricular suspension.
2. Whether the procedures used—notice of the misconduct and an informal opportunity to respond—were constitutionally sufficient for the extracurricular suspension.
3. Whether the extracurricular suspension violated equal protection under rational basis review.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the superintendent and the board.
- The court held Palmer received all process constitutionally required: notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond during the initial meeting with school officials.
- The court held no separate, additional hearing was required before imposing the 60-day extracurricular suspension tied to the same misconduct.
- The court rejected the equal protection claim because the discipline was rationally related to legitimate school interests.

## Legal Principles

- For short-term student discipline, due process generally requires notice of the charges and an informal opportunity to be heard, not a formal hearing.
- Participation in interscholastic athletics is not a fundamental constitutional right; restrictions on extracurricular participation typically do not trigger heightened procedural protections.
- When additional sanctions arise from the same incident for which the student already received Goss-type procedures, due process does not necessarily require a second, separate hearing for each added sanction.
- Under rational basis review, school discipline satisfies equal protection if it is reasonably related to legitimate objectives such as deterring drug and alcohol use and reinforcing citizenship expectations for student-athletes.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a 10-day school suspension and a subsequent 60-day extracurricular suspension where the student had notice of the misconduct allegations and an informal opportunity to respond, and where the extracurricular discipline was rationally related to legitimate educational and disciplinary goals.


Palmer v. Merluzzi, 868 F.2d 90 (3d Cir. 1989)