Exploration of Historical Foundations In Special Education Landmark Case:

Honig v. Doe

Nazmun Shanta

Department of Education, College of Southern Nevada

EDU 203: Introduction to Special Education

Professor Constantina Pappas

April 2nd, 2021

Landmark Case: Honig v. Doe 2

The Honig decision is a landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the

issue of expelling a disabled child based on actions arising out of that child’s disability. In Honig,

the Court ruled that a school district may not unilaterally exclude or expel a disabled child from

the classroom setting for dangerous or disruptive conduct growing out of their disabilities.

The Honig case is a landmark decision because the Court created what is now known as

the “ten-day rule,” which allows a school to only suspend a child for up to ten days without

parental consent or court intervention. Moreover, the Court ruled that a student could not be

removed from school if the inappropriate behavior is a result of their disability. Now, under the

IDEA, a child may be expelled for up to ten days for disciplinary infractions and up to forty-five

days for dangerous behavior involving weapons or drugs. However, if a school is seeking a

change of placement, suspension, or expulsion of a child in excess of ten days, an IEP meeting

must be held to review the causal relationship between the child’s misconduct and his disability.

This specific meeting has become known as a “manifestation determination” review. From a

clinical perspective, the Honig decision also gave rise to the need for BCBAs to conduct what is

known as a “functional behavioral assessment” or an FBA.

John Doe was a student at the Louise Lombard School, a developmental center for

disabled children. Doe had a disability that caused him considerable difficulty in controlling his

impulses. On November 6, 1980, Doe was teased by a fellow student and responded by attacking

the student and kicking out a school window. Doe was subsequently suspended pending

expulsion proceedings. After unsuccessfully protesting the suspension by letter, Doe brought an

action against school authorities under the Education of the Handicapped Act. Jack Smith was

another handicapped student whose disability caused behavioral problems. Smith engaged in
Landmark Case: Honig v. Doe 3

disruptive behavior and was eventually suspended indefinitely pending a hearing. Smith brought

an action in district court essentially identical to Doe’s one. After learning of Doe's action Smith

joined Doe's suit.

The handicapped students asked the district court to enter an order requiring the school to

allow the students to return to their schools. The district court granted the handicapped students'

request and issued a permanent injunction, an order which prevented the school district from

indefinitely suspending a student for disability-related misconduct. The school authorities

appealed, and the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's opinion. The

school authorities appealed the appellate court's decision.

Turning to the first of the issues, the court decided that the case was moot about Doe

because he had passed the EAHCA’s( The Education for All Handicapped Children

Act)eligibility age of 21. However, since Smith still was eligible under the EAHCA, the court

reviewed the rest of the claim. Regarding the “dangerous exception” issue, the court did not

believe that Congress had allowed for such a provision when creating the EAHCA and refused to

rewrite the statute to include it. Reviewing the act’s legislative purpose, the court found that it

was clear that Congress wanted “to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally

employed to exclude disabled students, particularly emotionally disturbed students, from

school.” At the same time, the court pointed out that educators were not without options when

dealing with potentially dangerous students. For instance, the court noted that educators may use
Landmark Case: Honig v. Doe 4

any of a variety of procedures when responding to dangerous students, such as study carrels,

time-outs, detention, restriction of privileges, or suspensions for up to 10 days.

Although the “stay-put” provision created a presumption in favor of leaving children in their

existing educational placements, school officials are entitled to seek injunctive relief to exclude

students when the interests of maintaining safe learning environments outweigh the dangerous

child’s right to receive a free and appropriate public education.

This court case ruling is important to today’s students because these acts protect the right of

handicapped children and their families in securing these services. Handicapped students now

enjoy several legislative protections that their nonhandicapped peers do not possess.
Landmark Case: Honig v. Doe 5

Reference:

Gargiulo, R. M., & Bouck, E. C. (2021). Special education in contemporary society: An

introduction to exceptionality(7th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.