An analysis of administrative discretion in selected students' rights decisions of the United States Supreme Court

This legal research study selected nine Supreme Court cases which dealt with student control issues, beginning with the Tinker (1969) decision and ending with the Hazelwood (1988) ruling. The purpose of this study was to identify aspects of each case which involved the discretionary decisions of school administrators in their capacity of dealing with student management and disciplinary action. Principles used by the Supreme Court in structuring the discretionary relationship between school administrators and students were identified and described. Guidelines were provided for school administrators in exercising discretion in school discipline situations.; Principles, concepts, and doctrines which served to guide the Supreme Court's regulation by judicial review of administrative discretion in these student management cases are summarized in the following statements: (1) Reasonableness in rules, procedures, and punishment was a central concept in the Supreme Court's review of discretionary acts of discipline. (2) The standard of reasonableness increased as a discipline matter impinged on a constitutional right or interest. (3) Administrative action often received a greater "reasonableness" endorsement when supported by federal, state, or local procedures, by clearly-defined educational interests, and by involvement of students at different levels in the processes. (4) Consistent rules and procedures, and supporting factual evidence helped substantiate a reasonableness review. (5) In reviewing the interaction between student and administrator in a disciplinary situation, the Supreme Court carefully considered the following factors: uniqueness of the school environment; students as minors; flexibility needed for certain actions of misconduct; authority and abuse of authority issues; student versus other students' and the school's interests; and a type of cost/benefit analysis in adding or withholding additional protections or procedures. (6) A qualified immunity was provided by the Court for certain discretionary acts involving the violation of students' civil rights. (7) A lawsuit against an administrator for monetary damages was determined to require proof of injury and an actual monetary amount, similar to other tort liability claims.