Court Case Of Jarius Piphus

Facts of Case: Jarius Piphus was a freshman at a Chicago vocational high school. On January 23, 1974, during school, Piphus and other students were outdoors. The principal who went by unnoticed saw an irregular shaped cigarette being passed around between the students. The principal also believes that he smelled marijuana. He also noticed a pack of rolling papers being passed amongst the students. Once the students became aware of the principal they threw the cigarette in a nearby bush. The principal took the students to the assistant principal and ordered that they each be given a twenty-day suspension. The school principal kept Piphus out of the classroom for the remainder of the school day. During this time they tried to reach

The year before the principal announced that no male student may wear an earring as it can be seen as a sign of belonging to a gang. Brisco was reminded of this rule, but refused to remove the earring. Brisco stated that the earring was a symbol of black pride and that he was not part of a gang. The assistant principal informed Brisco’s mother he would be suspended for twenty days. Brisco and his mother filed suit, claiming that Silas was suspended without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. They sought punitive damages in the amount of $5,000. Brisco was readmitted to school after during the pendency for proceedings for a preliminary injunction after serving seventeen days of his

The District court upheld that both students were suspended without due process. Piphus and Brisco. The District Court stated that they were not entitled to any punitive damages, because they should have known that any lengthy suspension without any adjudicative hearing of any type would violate procedural due process. The court also stated that the students were entitled to have their suspensions removed from their permanent records, but for some reason the court failed to enter an order to that effect and instead, it simply dismissed the complaints. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The Court stated that the District Court should have considered evidence to prove the value of each school day that was missed. The Court ruled the students would not be able to recover any damages representing the number of school days missed. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that even if the District Court found the suspensions to be justified, they would be entitled to recover non-punitive damages simply because they had been denied due