## Facts

- Dustin W. Seal, a Tennessee public high school junior, drove his mother’s car to school.
- The previous day, a friend had brought a hunting knife (3.5-inch blade) into the car; another student later placed it in the glove compartment.
- The record was unclear whether Seal knew the knife was in the car when he drove it onto school property.
- After Seal was suspected of consuming alcohol, he consented to a school search of the car; a vice principal found the knife in the glove compartment.
- The school system maintained a “zero tolerance” weapons policy treating possession of a weapon on school property as an expellable offense.
- Following school-level proceedings and further review, the Knox County Board of Education voted unanimously to expel Seal for the remainder of the school year, despite evidence and argument that he lacked knowledge of the knife.
- Seal sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of procedural and substantive due process; the district court denied defendants’ summary-judgment motions and effectively granted summary judgment to Seal on liability.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee law gives public school students a protected property interest in continued public education for Fourteenth Amendment due process purposes.
2. Whether expelling a student for weapon “possession” under a zero-tolerance policy, without requiring knowing possession, is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and thus consistent with substantive due process.
3. Whether the superintendent could be individually liable under § 1983 absent personal involvement or responsibility for an unconstitutional policy.

## Decision

- The court held that Tennessee law confers a protected property interest in a public education, so expulsion implicates due process.
- The court held that a rule requiring expulsion for mere presence of a weapon on school property, regardless of a student’s knowledge, would be irrational and would violate substantive due process.
- The court concluded that summary judgment for Seal on liability was improper because factual disputes remained about Seal’s knowledge and the Board’s actual basis for expulsion.
- As to the Board, the court affirmed denial of the Board’s summary-judgment motion, reversed the effective grant of summary judgment for Seal on liability, and remanded for further proceedings.
- As to Superintendent Morgan, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in his favor due to lack of personal involvement or policy responsibility sufficient for § 1983 liability.

## Legal Principles

- State law determines whether a student has a property interest in public education protected by the Fourteenth Amendment; Tennessee law creates such an entitlement.
- School disciplinary actions affecting that interest are subject to substantive due process review under a rational-basis standard.
- Expulsion for weapon “possession” that does not require at least knowledge or reason to know of the weapon’s presence may lack a rational relation to legitimate interests in school safety and discipline.
- Summary judgment is improper where the record does not resolve whether the decisionmaker found (or should have found) knowledge and where competing inferences exist about the grounds for discipline.
- Individual liability under § 1983 requires personal participation in the constitutional deprivation or sufficient responsibility for the challenged policy; supervisory status alone is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit recognized a protected property interest in public education under Tennessee law and held that mandatory expulsion for an unknowingly possessed weapon would be irrational under substantive due process, but it remanded because the record did not conclusively establish what the Board found about knowledge or why it expelled Seal, while directing judgment for the superintendent due to lack of personal involvement.


Seal v. Morgan, 229 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2000)