CONSTRUCTED BRIEF FOR DEMONSTRATION. The parties are fictitious. The cited authorities are as stated.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WESTMARCH

DANA MARLOW, a minor, by and through her parent, Plaintiff,
v.
TESSALY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

INTRODUCTION

Dana Marlow is a tenth-grade student at Tessaly County High School. On the morning of March 3 the assistant principal suspended her for nine school days. Nobody told her what she was accused of, and nobody asked for her account before she was sent home. She asks the Court to order the Board to set the suspension aside until it gives her a hearing.

ARGUMENT

I. A suspension of nine days requires notice and an opportunity to respond.

The Supreme Court has decided this question for suspensions of exactly this length. A suspension of up to ten days, the Court said, "is a serious event in the life of the suspended child." Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 576 (1975). That is why the student must be told what she is accused of and given a chance to answer before she is sent home.

The Board answers that discipline inside a school is a matter for the school alone. That is not the law. The Constitution does not stop at the classroom door. See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) ("It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or association at the schoolhouse gate.").

II. The balance of interests favors a hearing.

As explained in Whitlock v. Farraday, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976), the process that is due depends on the private interest affected, the risk of an erroneous deprivation under the procedures used, and the interest of the government. Each factor favors the student. Nine days of lost instruction cannot be given back, a short conversation before the suspension would have cost the school almost nothing, and the Board has identified no emergency. See Ostrander v. Vellacott, 411 U.S. 9999 (1973).

The Board relies on the rule that corporal punishment may be imposed without a prior hearing. See Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977). That rule concerns a different sanction and does not reach an exclusion from school.

CONCLUSION

The motion should be granted.