holding that an in-school suspension, even where students are provided with educational instruction, can violate due process *248when it "so isolates a student from educational opportunities that it infringes her property interest in an education"
How later courts described this case
- holding that an in-school suspension, even where students are provided with educational instruction, can violate due process *248when it "so isolates a student from educational opportunities that it infringes her property interest in an education"
- recognizing that “[a]llegations of state law or state constitutional violations will not support a § 1983 claim.
- holding that a failure to follow a policy directive does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation because a policy directive does not create a constitutional right or protectable liberty interest
- dismissing claim as to in-school suspensions but noting that “[u]nder certain circumstances, in- school isolation could well constitute as much deprivation of education as at-home suspension” depending “on the extent to which the student was deprived of instruction or the opportunity to learn” (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority opinion’s thorough analysis and agree that the district court should have granted defendant WCBE’s motion to dismiss but write separately to emphasize that imposing an in-school suspension, even of short duration, without procedural safeguards could conceivably violate due process under different facts. The Tennessee statutes apparently contemplate that students receiving in-school suspensions complete academic requirements. The complaint fails to allege any educational detriment suffered by Victoria Laney that could amount to deprivation of a property interest or any repu-tational harm that might amount to deprivation of a liberty interest. There is no allegation of any sort of loss that could be categorized as more than de minimis. Here, the assertions of a constitutional violation are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.