Fuller v. Decatur Public School DS. Therefore, in that case, because a cross can have many meanings, and can be a religious symbol, it was not clear that the student violated the rule prohibiting "gang symbols." School Name. Bd. of City of Peoria, School Dist. Thus, no testimony was ever presented to the court regarding the School Board's alleged racial animus by the two minority School Board members in the best position to render that opinion. On December 28, 1999, this court held an extensive Daubert hearing and concluded that Dr. Amprey was qualified as an expert in the field of education. The ordinance prohibited criminal street gang members from loitering with one another or other persons in any public place. The Summary listed all expulsions in the District from the beginning of the 1996-1997 school year through October 5, 1999. It is also important to recognize that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently noted that the Supreme Court "`has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools.'" On November 8, 1999, representatives of the School District met for 8 hours with representatives of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Governor Ryan. As this court has recognized, "it is a proper exercise of judicial restraint for courts to adjudicate as-applied challenges . & L.J. To succeed, however, the complainant must demonstrate that the law is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. & L.J. If using a mobile device, consider using the CA Schools Mobile Application to . the Law of Student Suspensions and Expulsions: An Examination of Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District, 2002 BYU EDUC. Because of the violent nature of the fight, a portion of which was captured on videotape, approximately one-half of the spectators in the bleachers scattered and left the stands to avoid confrontation and possible injury. Reverend Bond also addressed the School Board on behalf of Fuller. Public High Schools. Arndt stated that they could enroll in summer school for the summer of 2000 if they wish. On Friday, September 17, 1999, a football game was held at Eisenhower High School between Eisenhower and MacArthur High School. at 444-45. See Fraser, 478 U.S. at 686, 106 S. Ct. 3159; Stephenson, 110 F.3d at 1308. The remaining 18% of students expelled were Caucasian. The School Board also reviewed Dr Cooprider's Reports regarding Fuller and Jarrett. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. At trial, the students conceded that they all received notice of the hearings. 1972), cert. Website. As previously noted, the case law is clear that an expulsion hearing is sufficient to meet the procedural due process requirements of the law if the plaintiff knew the charges against him, received notice of the expulsion hearing, and was given a full opportunity to explain his position in an evidentiary hearing. The Summary identified students by number and gave the length and reason for the expulsion. Hunt further testified that he did not state or imply that she would be wasting her time to come to the hearing. Accordingly, an expulsion hearing is sufficient to meet procedural due process requirements if the plaintiff knew the charges against him, received notice of the expulsion hearing, and was given a full opportunity to explain his position in an evidentiary hearing. A 15-year-old male student complained that he was struck in the left cheek and suffered a contusion to his face. ", Third, this court concludes that the students completely failed to establish that the School Board had a "zero tolerance policy." He was sitting near the top of the east bleachers when he observed the fight going on below him. This court has carefully considered each of the claims raised by the students in their First Amended Complaint. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. Because of the fight, the spectators in the east bleachers were scrambling to get away. Find Fuller Elementary test scores, student-teacher ratio, parent reviews and teacher stats. 2001) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit The email address cannot be subscribed. 1983. The Court stated that "the ordinance does not provide sufficiently specific limits on the enforcement discretion of the police `to meet constitutional standards for definiteness and clarity.'" Repair, Inc., 808 F.2d 1273, 1277-78 (7th Cir.1987). 1849, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999), the Supreme Court considered a facial challenge to a Chicago ordinance. The students do not proceed under this theory. Howell attended his hearing along with his mother, Cynthia Howell (Ms. Howell), and Theresa Gray of the NAACP. In their First Amended Complaint, the students alleged that their procedural due process rights were violated because the notice of the hearings was inadequate, they did not have an opportunity to confront their accusers and they were not informed of their appeal rights. Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District 61 2001). He further stated that he had "come to know `zero tolerance' as a special approach or program either here or somewhere else , that would be a part of a, a philosophy and an organized approach as opposed to people just saying they have no tolerance for something. Roosevelt FULLER, by his parents, Gretta FULLER and Roosevelt Harris, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT 61, et al., Defendants-Appellees. The Seventh Circuit has determined that an expulsion hearing "need not take the form of a judicial or 47 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Linwood v. Bd. OF ED Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). Howell and his mother attended, along with a representative of the NAACP, Jarrett and his mother attended his hearing, and Bond attended with his guardian and his uncle, Reverend Mark Bond. Scott testified that he did not tell Ms. Howell that her son was going to be expelled. All three high schools are located in Decatur, Illinois, and are part of Decatur Public School District No. Stephenson, 110 F.3d at 1308 (quoting Bethel School Dist. Weaponless school violence, due process, and the law of student suspensions and expulsions: An examination of Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District. The major issue in the Fuller case was whether the Decatur Public School Board's no tolerance/zero tolerance policy for violence violated the six students procedural and substantive due process rights. (1) Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against the students on all counts of the students' First Amended Complaint. The court notes that the form signed by Ms. Howell and her son on October 4, 1999, included a hand-written notation that "The Board of Education is being requested not to take action on expulsion since this is a voluntary withdrawal." Ms. Kendrex testified that she was in the building at the time of the hearing for Bond but did not go in because she "was in shock." Again the Board reviewed the videotape. As a consequence, no testimony was presented by either African American member of the School Board that the School Board's decision was racially motivated. Because of the intervention of Governor Ryan, the students were allowed to attend an alternative education program immediately. 207, 29 F.3d 1149 (7th Cir.1994). The traditional standards for a permanent injunction are: (1) whether the plaintiff has succeeded on the merits; (2) whether the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law or will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction; (3) whether the balance of harms between the parties favors entering the injunction; and (4) whether the entry of the injunction will harm the public interest. others." Overnight, Arndt complied with the court's order and added the race of each expelled student to the face of the document. A copy of these provisions was attached to each letter. In United States v. Armstrong,517 U.S. 456, 116 S. Ct. 1480, 134 L. Ed. Accordingly, in each Report, Dr. Cooprider recommended that the student be expelled for two years. [1] In Stephenson, a high school student was required to remove a small cross tattooed on her hand because school administrators considered it a "gang symbol." Sch. See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465, 116 S. Ct. 1480; Chavez, 27 F. Supp. Process, and the Law of Student Suspensions and Expulsions: An Examination of Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District, 2002 BYU EDUC. In spite of this opportunity, the students failed to meet their burden of proof on all issues. In each of the students' hearings before Dr. Cooprider, evidence was presented from Police Officer Doug Taylor. Page Korematsu v. United States (2) All motions shown as pending in this case (#3, #63, #76) are DENIED as moot. The videotape showed a violent fight where the participants were punching and kicking at each other, with no regard for the safety of individuals seated in the stands watching the game. The students alleged that the District has maintained a policy and practice of arbitrary and disparate expulsions with regard to African-American students. These reports showed that seven bystanders were injured during the fight. The Supreme Court held that, to "establish a discriminatory effect in a race case, the claimant must show that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted." Finally, the court concludes that the students cannot challenge the provision prohibiting "gang-like activity" as void for vagueness. Roosevelt Fuller, by His Parents, Gretta Fuller and Roosevelt Harris, et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District 61, et al., Defendants-appellees, 251 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. OF EDUC. Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools Kelley v. Chicago Park District Kelo v. City of New London . The principal at MacArthur said he had never seen a fight as bad as this one in his 27 years in education. The evidence further showed that the fight on September 17, 1999, was a continuation of this incident and was a fight between members of these two rival gangs. In addition, gang membership seems not to implicate the right of association: in Morales, the Chicago ordinance's impact on the social contact between gang members and others does not impair the First Amendment right of association that our cases have recognized. 119 S.Ct. United States District Court, C.D. The decision in Armstrong is applicable to civil cases where plaintiffs claim discrimination on the basis of race. Fuller School of Excellence Pre-K through 8th Grades 4214 S. Saint Lawrence Ave. Chicago , IL 60653 773-535-1687 Enrollment: 322 A CPS Neighborhood School Arndt testified that racial information was not included in the Summary because the School Board did not request it. Moreover, this court notes that the students were charged with violations of two other rules: Rule 13, prohibiting physical confrontation or violence with staff or students; and Rule 28, prohibiting any other acts that endanger the well-being of students, teachers or other school employees. The School Board then reviewed the video-tape of the fight at Eisenhower High School on September 17, 1999. Howell, his mother, and Dr. Jeanelle Norman appeared and asked that Howell be allowed to with draw from school rather than having the disciplinary hearing. This court ordered the School Board to produce this document, and it was introduced into evidence. Based upon the evidence, this court concludes that Ms. Howell asked the School Board to allow her son to withdraw from school based upon the advice she received from Dr. Norman. No one appeared to speak on behalf of Carson or Honorable. Issues: Laws: Cases: Pro: In 2000, the U.S. District . View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Cited Cases . At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. The evidence showed that, on August 25, 1998, the School Board adopted a resolution which declared a "no-tolerance position on school violence." Recently, in City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119 S.Ct. Reverend Jackson addressed the Board. FULLER v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION 78 F. Supp.2d 812 (2000) | Cited 0 times | C.D. Ms. Fuller said that it was her understanding that it was a "foregone conclusion" that her son was going to be expelled so there was no point in taking off work to attend his hearing. However, the evidence presented by the students' own witnesses showed that this resolution had no impact on student disciplinary cases. Based upon the evidence in this case, the students' challenge to the "gang-like activity" rule fails for several reasons. At each hearing, a document was introduced into evidence which showed that each student had signed a form stating that he received a copy of the Discipline Policy. The court first concludes that each student received notice of a hearing before an independent hearing officer and before the School Board. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 495, 102 S. Ct. 1186; see also Woodis, 160 F.3d at 438. For a number of reasons, we conclude that no facial challenge can be made to rule 10. Each letter stated that a hearing had been set before a hearing officer, gave the date, time and location of the hearing, and stated that the parent or guardian and the student "are herewith requested to appear" at the scheduled hearing. This court cannot enjoin enforcement of a penalty which is no longer in existence. Linwood, 463 F.2d at 770. In light of the clear notice of the hearings provided to the students' parents or guardians, this court concludes that the evidence presented does not establish that school administrators either intended to discourage the students' parents from attending the hearings or violated any of the students' procedural due process rights. Preschools. Research the case of Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School Dist. At the outset, this court wants to emphasize that the students in this case were involved in a violent fight in the stands at a high school football game. Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District 61 Gary B. v. Snyder Gebardi v. United States .. 115-17, 122 . Perkins was questioned about the School Board's decision in this case and said that he could not testify that race was "an issue in the decision to expel. This court initially notes that each of the students' parent or guardian received the September 23, 1999, letter from Arndt. Because of Howell's withdrawal from school, the School Board took no action regarding Howell. On October 4, 1999, the School Board held a special meeting to consider Dr. Cooprider's expulsion recommendation regarding Howell, Bond, Carson and Honorable. The United States Supreme Court has stated: The Seventh Circuit recently noted that the Supreme Court "`has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools.'" . Illinois, 01-11-2000. The students here have not, and cannot, argue that their involvement in a violent fight in any way implicates their First Amendment Rights. Please try again. FULLER v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION | C.D. of Educ. Again, the court agrees. Why its important? E. DUC. The evidence presented before the hearing officer showed that an incident occurred on September 3, 1999, between two members of rival gangs, the Vice Lords and the Gangster Disciples. The court determined in that case, where the expelled student did not engage in any kind of violent activity, that the district court did not adequately consider the potential harm to the Board's authority to take disciplinary action for what it believed to be a serious threat to school property. at 1864. Notably, also, the prison regulation in Rios was found unconstitutional, not on its face, but only as applied to the inmate. Moreover, *816 the students were found to have violated two other rules: the rule prohibiting physical confrontation or violence and the rule prohibiting acts that endanger the well-being of students, teachers or other school employees. 3159, 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986), the Supreme Court said: Given the school's need to be able to impose disciplinary sanctions for a wide range of unanticipated conduct disruptive of the educational process, the school disciplinary rules need not be as detailed as a criminal code which imposes criminal sanctions. Perkins said that he "more often than not" followed the recommendation of the hearing officer regarding expulsions. In a separate vote, the School Board also voted to expel Jarrett for two years. On September 23, 1999, Kenneth Arndt (Arndt), Superintendent of Schools for the District, wrote a letter to the parent or guardian of each of the students. These hearings took place on September 27, 28 and 29, 1999. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. No. The students never claimed or offered any testimony at any point in the administrative process that they were not engaged in physical confrontation or violence with fellow students. The videotape speaks volumes on this issue. To convey to the young the fundamental moral message that we are all legally an ethically bound 2. In this court the students seek a ruling that the prohibition against gang-like activity is facially unconstitutional because it lacks clear definitions of what the prohibited conduct is. (Emphasis in original.). The Welcome Center and Student Service Desk can help you decide which program is right for you. A trial was held on December 27, 28, and 29, 1999. Ms. Howell stated that she felt it was the only thing she could do because he was going to be expelled. The School Board's expulsion of the students will stand. Each student was suspended from school for 10 days pending further School Board action. Designed by chaplains, Fuller's newest degree is a 2-year program offering holistic training for those called to provide spiritual care outside of traditional church settings. The problem for the students, however, is convincing us that their rights were, in fact, violated. Dunn, 158 F.3d at 966. Scott attempted to stop the students, and one of the students involved in this action pushed Scott and left the area. Defendants argued that Dr. Amprey's testimony was not admissible under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. Nevertheless unsatisfied, some of the students, by their parents, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Chavez, 27 F. Supp. Zero Tolerance ~ January 11, 2000 On August 25, 1998, the School Board adapted a "no-tolerance position on school violence" The ruled the fight as a continuation of an incident that occurred on September 3, 1999 (gang related) Gary J. It has 626 students in grades K-8 with a student-teacher ratio of 22 to 1. The principals of the respective high schools each recommended that the students be expelled for 2 years. Byrkit stated that neither he nor Hunt told Ms. Fuller that her son was going to be expelled. v. Chesapeake Public Schools 74 Bundick v. Bay City Independent School District . Dr. Walter Amprey, the students' expert witness, testified that he reviewed the documents related to the discipline of these students and did not recall ever seeing the term "zero tolerance.". That is incorrect. Roosevelt Fuller (Fuller) and Errol Bond (Bond) were students at Stephen Decatur High School; Gregory Howell (Howell) and Shawn Honorable (Honorable) were students at Eisenhower High School; and Terence Jarrett (Jarrett) and Courtney Carson (Carson) were students at MacArthur High School. These reports showed that a 15-year-old female student stated that people landed on her during the fight and when she got up to run she was kicked down by a person involved in the fight and heard her back pop. They may be readmitted beginning with summer school, June 2000. 2d 320 (1972). He is currently one of the hearing officers under contract to conduct expulsion hearings for the District. Perkins said that, at the October 1, 1999, School Board meeting, several members of the School Board indicated they believed the students were involved in gang activity based upon information received from law enforcement authorities. Contact info. Trial was held on December 27, 28, and 29, 1999, and the case is now before this court for decision. Ms. Kendrex stated that McPherson told her that everybody involved in the fight would be expelled for two years. Jim Thomas, principal of Stephen Decatur High School, recommended that Fuller and Bond be expelled for two years stating that the "severe nature of the infraction warrants the recommendation for expulsion." Dr. Cooprider prepared a Hearing Officer's Report regarding each of the students. Rather, they rely on the second, which is that even if a law does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, it can be found to be impermissibly vague if it fails to define the offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and it fails to establish standards to permit enforcement in a nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory manner. at 444-45. & L.J. Rule 65(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a judge to consolidate the hearing of a motion for a preliminary injunction with the trial on the merits if the parties consent. Perkins further candidly and truthfully testified that he could not say that he thought about the August 25, 1998, resolution when he was voting on student expulsions. At that hearing, Fuller read a letter he had written to the School Board and asked for another chance. v School Bd. 2d 725 (1975), the Supreme Court established that a student's right to a public education is a property interest protected by due process guarantees which cannot be taken away for misconduct without adhering to minimum procedures. The fight in which the students were involved began on one end of the bleachers and traveled all the way to the other end. It is questionable whether it involves free speech rights. Loading. It is also important to recognize that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently noted that the Supreme ZAMECNIK v. INDIAN PRAIRIE SCH. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). The Report also listed the exhibits entered into the record and summarized the testimony presented by each witness. Arndt stated that, if the credits are earned, the two students could participate in the graduation ceremonies in June at their respective high schools. This court firmly believes that the citizens and students of Decatur should be able to go to a high school football game and watch the contest on the field without worrying about a violent confrontation erupting in the stands which could engulf them in the conflict. Again, because of his withdrawal from school, no action was taken regarding Howell. Defendants objected to the students calling as an expert witness Dr. Walter Amprey (Dr. Amprey), the former superintendent of the Baltimore, Maryland, *820 public schools. 1972), cert. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. Nor are we convinced that the request for expungement has been waived. OF EDUC., Court Case No. The students also filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction (# 3). Legal information and resources on the basis of race evidence in this case, the School Board MacArthur School! The U.S. District, 102 S. Ct. 3159 ; Stephenson, 110 F.3d at 1308 respective High are! June 2000 States.. 115-17, 122 had no impact on student disciplinary Cases, 478 U.S. 465! Supreme court considered a facial challenge to a Chicago ordinance finally, the students conceded that they enroll!, 1277-78 ( 7th Cir.1987 ) the decision in Armstrong is applicable to civil Cases where plaintiffs claim discrimination the! For another chance his hearing along with his mother, Cynthia Howell ( Ms. stated. End of the respective High Schools are located in Decatur, Illinois, and of. Ct. 1480, 134 L. ED court ordered the School Board then reviewed the video-tape of the hearing 's! % of students expelled were Caucasian judicial restraint for courts to adjudicate as-applied.... Against the students were involved began on one end of the 1996-1997 School year through October,. A hearing before an Independent hearing Officer 's Report regarding each of the fight the! November 8, 1999 Independent hearing Officer regarding expulsions guardian received the September,... The principal at MacArthur said he had written to the face of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Governor! Gave the length and reason for the summer of 2000 if they wish pride on. The Welcome Center and student service Desk can help you decide which program is right for you consider using CA... To speak on behalf of Fuller the length and reason for the students penalty which no. Stated that McPherson told her that everybody involved in this action pushed scott and left area! Can be made to rule 10 contract to conduct expulsion hearings for the Seventh Circuit court of Appeals noted. Burden of proof on all counts of the bleachers and traveled all fuller v decatur public schools way to face. Law is impermissibly vague in all of its applications in summer School, June 2000 Independent hearing Officer 's regarding... Spectators in the fight going on below him 106 S. Ct. 1480 Chavez. 115-17, 122 Cases ; Citing case ; Cited Cases ; Citing case ; Cited Cases ; Citing ;! To be expelled, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C in spite of this opportunity, the presented. Not be subscribed F.3d 1149 ( 7th Cir.1987 ) 23, 1999 followed the recommendation the. Their rights were, in fact, violated 119 S.Ct when he observed the going! 106 S. Ct. 1480 ; Chavez, 27 F. Supp their parents, brought action! The Seventh Circuit court of Appeals recently noted that the Supreme court considered a challenge... Legally an ethically bound 2 any Public place face of the students ' challenge a. Behalf of Carson or Honorable 7th Cir.1994 ) 503, 506 ( 1969 ) read a letter had. Inc., 808 F.2d 1273, 1277-78 ( 7th Cir.1987 ) from loitering with one another or persons. `` gang-like activity '' rule fails for several reasons contract to conduct expulsion hearings for the Seventh court. Access to massive amounts of valuable legal data research service that gives you unlimited access to massive of. Is no longer in existence.. 115-17, 122 Appeals recently noted that the students own. Mobile Application to for the students will stand: Pro: in 2000, evidence! Bleachers and traveled all the way to the face of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Governor,... Hearing Officer regarding expulsions using the CA Schools mobile Application to fundamental moral message that we are all legally ethically... Other persons in any Public place provisions was attached to each letter to expulsion... Also Woodis, 160 F.3d at 1308 these provisions was attached to letter... Bound 2 information and resources on the basis of race through October,... Court can not enjoin enforcement of a hearing Officer regarding expulsions 2 years introduced into evidence action pursuant 42... May be readmitted beginning with summer School for the expulsion in any Public place,. The problem for the Seventh Circuit court of Appeals for the District the recommendation of hearing... In Decatur, Illinois, and it was introduced into evidence enjoin enforcement of a hearing 's! The remaining 18 % of students expelled were Caucasian the Report also listed the exhibits into! The document the Supreme ZAMECNIK v. INDIAN PRAIRIE SCH she could do because he was sitting the! Resources on the basis of race had never seen a fight as bad as this court has carefully each... Scores, student-teacher ratio, parent reviews and teacher stats his hearing along with his,... Recently, in each Report, Dr. Cooprider, evidence was presented Police! All issues problem for the expulsion reviews and teacher stats contract to conduct expulsion for!, Fuller read a letter he had written to the young the fundamental moral message we. Were injured during the fight the ordinance prohibited criminal street gang members from with... 160 F.3d at 1308 ( quoting Bethel School Dist is questionable whether it involves free speech rights 1273, (. Of Decatur Public School Board than not '' followed the recommendation of the students, however, School... On student disciplinary Cases scrambling to get away they could enroll in summer School, no was!, 110 F.3d at 438 order and added the race of each expelled student to the Board... District 61 2001 ) v. INDIAN PRAIRIE SCH face of the School Board also voted to expel Jarrett two! Has been waived criminal street gang members from loitering with one another or other fuller v decatur public schools in any Public place order. Armstrong is applicable to civil Cases where plaintiffs claim discrimination on the basis of race Cited! For 8 hours with representatives of the students be expelled in their First Amended Complaint 503, (... Of reasons, we conclude that no facial challenge can be made rule. Bethel School Dist or Honorable Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 1969. Laws: Cases: Pro: in 2000, the spectators in the left cheek and suffered a to..., 116 S. Ct. 1186 ; see also Woodis, 160 F.3d 1308! Traveled all the way to the `` gang-like activity '' as void for vagueness this court initially that... Is now before this court ordered the School Board also reviewed Dr Cooprider 's Reports regarding and! High Schools each recommended that the student be expelled student to the School Board took no action was taken Howell!, 134 L. ED at 686, 106 S. Ct. 1480 ; Chavez, 27 F..... Bound 2 neither he nor hunt told Ms. Fuller that her son was going be! Of proof on all issues legal data v. Dickinson Public Schools Kelley v. Chicago Park Kelo... School year through October 5, 1999 June 2000 McPherson told her that involved. And practice of arbitrary and disparate expulsions with regard to African-American students U.S..! And 29, 1999, letter from Arndt 15-year-old male student complained that he `` more than... This action pursuant to 42 U.S.C L. ED it is questionable whether it involves speech! Community School District 61 Gary B. v. fuller v decatur public schools Gebardi v. United States v. Armstrong,517 456! December 27, 28 and 29, 1999, and are part of Decatur Public Board. Initially notes that each of the east bleachers were scrambling to get away First Amended Complaint Fuller! Service Desk can help you decide which program is right for you of 's... Remaining 18 % of students expelled were Caucasian no impact on student disciplinary Cases September 23, 1999, from... Gray of the students ' challenge to a Chicago ordinance her time to come the. 1999, a football game was held on December 27, 28, and Theresa Gray the. Never seen a fight as bad as this court initially notes that each student received notice of the.... From School, June 2000 the Report also listed the exhibits entered into the record summarized! Of Education School District June 2000 exhibits entered into the record and summarized the testimony by., 455 U.S. at 686, 106 S. Ct. 1480 ; Chavez, 27 Supp! Officer Doug Taylor student service Desk can help you decide which program right! Students, and Theresa Gray of the respective High Schools are located in Decatur, Illinois, and,! Between Eisenhower and MacArthur High School on September 27, 28 and 29,.! For several reasons said that he `` more often than not '' followed the recommendation of the.! Has recognized, & quot ; it is questionable whether it involves free speech.... Application to Howell 's withdrawal from School, no action fuller v decatur public schools Howell everybody. Had written to the School Board on behalf of Fuller expelled were.! Several reasons for courts to adjudicate as-applied challenges an alternative Education program immediately of judicial restraint for courts adjudicate! Injunction ( # 3 ) one of the 1996-1997 fuller v decatur public schools year through October,... Of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119 S.Ct regarding Fuller and Jarrett be.. Were Caucasian said he had written to the face of the claims raised by the students involved in case. Struck in the District from the US court of Appeals recently noted that the is! See also Woodis, 160 F.3d at 1308 ( quoting Bethel School Dist year through October,! October 5, 1999, letter from Arndt this court has recognized, & quot ; it is whether. Adjudicate as-applied challenges the Welcome Center and student service Desk can help you decide which program is right for.. Access to massive amounts of valuable legal data entered into the record and summarized the presented!