Brandon Tun v. Joselyn Whitticker and Judith Platz
Docket: 18-3310
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; February 16, 2005; Federal Appellate Court
Brandon Tun, a high school wrestler, was photographed nude in the locker room by a fellow student. After being seen giggling while looking at the negatives, Coach David Mohr confiscated them and questioned Tun about their origin. Tun informed Mohr that the negatives were taken by the wrestling team’s student manager, referred to as 'Constantine.' Mohr escalated the issue to school administrators, leading to the development of the photographs, which were identified as belonging to students in Mohr's class. An investigation followed, during which the boys claimed they believed there was no film in the camera when they participated in the photoshoot. Principal Joselyn Whitticker, after reviewing the investigation results, suspended Tun and the other boys for public indecency. Tun's subsequent lawsuit against the school district, Whitticker, and hearing officer Judith Platz cited a substantive due process violation, leading to a granted summary judgment in his favor and a denial of qualified immunity for Whitticker and Platz. The case now addresses their appeal against these rulings.
Whitticker initiated expulsion proceedings against Brandon Tun for alleged violations of Rules 22 and 24 of the district's behavior code, with Rule 22 addressing inappropriate sexual behavior and Rule 24 prohibiting offensive pornographic material. At the expulsion hearing led by Platz, Tun's counsel argued that expulsion was not warranted under Rule 24 and that Tun's actions—taking a shower in the locker room—did not violate Rule 22. Despite this argument, Tun was expelled after findings indicated he allowed another student to photograph him nude without intervention or reporting the incident. Tun appealed the decision, which was reversed, allowing him to return to school and clearing his disciplinary record after missing six weeks of classes. Tun claimed violations of his substantive due process rights, a claim that Magistrate Judge Roger Cosbey initially supported. However, upon de novo review, it was concluded that the case did not meet the standard for substantive due process claims. The appeal was jurisdictionally valid as it involved a collateral order denying a qualified immunity defense, which protects government officials from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. The analysis for qualified immunity involves determining if a constitutional right was violated and if that right was clearly established at the time, a determination complicated by the subjective nature of substantive due process. Judge Cosbey noted the confusion in Tun's complaint, but the central issue remained whether his substantive due process rights had indeed been violated.
The discussion centers on the distinction between procedural and substantive due process in the context of school disciplinary actions, specifically referencing Dunn v. Fairfield Community High School. Tun's appeal does not challenge his procedural due process rights, as he received hearings and legal representation, and his disciplinary record was ultimately cleared. Instead, Tun asserts that his expulsion infringed upon his substantive due process rights due to a lack of evidence for wrongdoing.
Substantive due process is characterized by its limited scope, with courts hesitant to expand its interpretation due to the scarcity of clear standards for responsible decision-making. The essence of due process is to protect individuals from arbitrary governmental actions. Substantive due process violations occur when governmental power is exercised without reasonable justification and can be described as actions that "shock the conscience."
Several cases are cited to illustrate this principle, including County of Sacramento v. Lewis, where the court determined that actions, although disapproved, did not meet the threshold of a constitutional violation. The court distinguishes between conduct that is merely bad or tortious and conduct that constitutes a constitutional violation.
The document also highlights prior rulings on school discipline cases, indicating that no substantive due process violations were found in similar situations, such as failing grades for unauthorized performances and expulsions related to a student plot. In these cases, claims of inadequate evidence were rejected, reinforcing the notion that not all wrongful actions by officials lead to constitutional liability.
In Wood v. Strickland, the Supreme Court upheld a school district's expulsion of two students for spiking punch at a school event, emphasizing that federal courts should not interfere with school administrators' decisions unless they violate specific constitutional rights. The Court reaffirmed that while students have substantive and procedural rights, Section 1983 does not allow for relitigating evidentiary issues or administrative discretion in school discipline. In a related case, the Court ruled that a school board's interpretation of its rules regarding alcohol did not violate a student's due process rights, asserting that extreme interpretations would be required for such a violation.
In the current case, the defendants' actions in expelling a student for non-serious behavior were deemed an overreaction, yet not a violation of due process as established by McCluskey. The incident highlighted the necessity of procedural due process, which ultimately led to the student’s expulsion being overturned and his records cleared. The court concluded that since there was no constitutional violation, there was no need to analyze qualified immunity further; however, even if a violation were found, the law was not clearly established enough to deny the defendants qualified immunity. Consequently, the district court's decision was reversed.
