The Supreme Court has frequently addressed due process claims and property interests, and while these cases are not specifically about education property interests, they can provide important insight into Goss. As a preliminary matter, a valid due process claim requires two elements, 1) a deprivation of a property, liberty, or life interest, and 2) a lack of process that was due. While, plaintiffs often allege deprivations of both property and liberty interests, courts rarely find that students have a liberty interest in their education. As such, property interests tend to be the basis for most education-based due process claims. To better understand property interests, we need to examine the parameters …show more content…
Property interests are a “positive law concept” and so property interests must derive from another source to exist. In Board of Regents v. Roth, the Supreme Court specified the source of where property interests come from, “[p]roperty interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.” State sources almost always serves as the source of a property interest, but other sources as municipal law can serve as sources for property interests. State law is defined broadly, and property interests can arise from a variety of sources such as state statutes, regulations, contracts, or even implied contracts. Therefore, plaintiff bringing a due process claim should consult to state law or a similar independent source to find a property interest for her claim to be …show more content…
Therefore, to understand this area of law, we need to discuss what Goss held specifically about property interests for students. In Goss, a high school suspended a group of students for ten days for disciplinary reasons. The students brought a due process claim alleging that they were not provided sufficient process. The first issue the Court decided was whether the students had a property interest in their continued enrollment at the school. The Court first noted that Board of Regents v. Roth requires property interests to derive from an independent source of law. Then the Court held that “on the basis of state law, appellees plainly had legitimate claims of entitlement to a public education. The Court based that decision on two state laws, the first law provide free education to all residents between five and twenty-one years old, and the second law that makes education compulsory for students. After determining there was a property interest, the Court next determined that the interest was “not de minimis” and thus should receive protection under the due process clause. The Court went on to determine that the students were not provided sufficient process, and that the students should have received a hearing and “notice of the charges against