1

Honig v Doe

Penny Harris
EDU 203-Intro to Special Education
Artifact #1: Exploration of Historical Foundations In Special Education -Landmark Case
Professor Tina Pappas
 2

Honig v Doe

Honig v Doe was a special education court case that went to the Supreme Court in 1988. The

case involved two students in the San Fransico Unified School District (SFUSD) that had

extreme behavioral issues, in 1980. One of the students, John Doe, was enrolled at the Louise

Lombard School, a developmental center for children with disabilities. Doe became upset with a

classmate after being teased and taunted by the classmate. He choked the classmate, and kicked

out a window in the school. The other student, Jack Smith was enrolled at A.P. Gianni M.S., had

stolen and extorted money from classmates, as well as made sexual comments to female

classmates. Both students had IEPs that stated they were prone to violent and disruptive

behavior(s), along with other behavioral issues, and their rights were protected under the

Education for All Handicapped Children Act. (Wright’s Law, 2022) John Doe and Jack Smith

were subsequently expelled from school because of their actions towards their fellow classmates.

Doe was the first to file a lawsuit stating that “the disciplinary actions of SFUSD had violated the

so called ‘stay put’ provision of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.” (Steketee,

2022) According to Justice Brennan, one of the Supreme Court judge's presiding over this case,

the “stay put” provision “which directs that a disabled child ‘shall remain in [his or her] then

current educational placement’ pending completion of any review proceedings, unless the

parents and state or local educational agencies otherwise agree.” (Wright’s Law, 2022) Jack

Smith followed suit after learning of John Doe’s case. (Steketee, 2022)

This case was considered a landmark case after the District Court ruled that the students had a

right to “a free appropriate education”, and made a permanent injunction that did not allow the

SFUSD to suspend students with documented behavioral issues for more than 5 days. (Steketee,

2022) Students also could not be placed in another learning environment (school, specialized
 3

center) unless their parents consented to it. The District Court also ruled that the state would

have to provide educational services if the educational agency failed to do so. SFUSD decided

to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Bill Honig, California Superintendent of Public

Instruction of Public Instruction, representing SFUSD, took the case before the Supreme Court

because he felt that the “stay put” provision in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act

was a “dangerous exception” and that requiring the state to pay for a student’s educational

services, when the school district could not, would be expensive. (Steketee, 2022).

In 1987, when the case went to the Supreme Court, they immediately dropped John Doe’s

claim because he surpassed EAHCA’s eligibility age of 21. Jack Smith was still within the age

requirement, so the Supreme Court took into consideration the ruling by the District Court. The

“dangerous exception” brought up by Mr. Honig, was ruled by the court that it, “did not believe

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

the statute to include it.” (Steketee, 2022) The Supreme Court also stated that Congress wanted

to make sure that schools did not have all of the authority to exclude students with disabilities

from school, especially students who were emotionally disturbed. It also addressed that schools

had the right to intervene when dealing with students who were a danger to themselves or others

by using detention, time-outs, and suspension for up to 10 days, known as a “cool down” period.

(Steketee, 2022) Even though the Court ruled in favor of the “stay put” provision in EAHCA,

they said schools could still go to court and get an injunction when maintaining a safe learning

environment outweighed a student who is dangerous, right to a free and appropriate education.

Finally, they ruled that the state DID have to provide services to students with disabilities when

the local school boards could not. Mostly the Supreme Court rule in favor of Jack Smith’s case,
 4

but they did state that suspensions more that 10 days for students with emotional/behavioral

issues were not allowable. (Steketee, 2022)

This ruling is important to students today because some students with severe emotional and

behavioral issues, especially if it is stated in an IEP, cannot control their actions. It is not fair to

deny these students an education and special services over areas of their lives they cannot

control. Expelling a student for over 10 days could mean the loss of skills; social, emotional, and

educational. When parents enroll their children in school, they expect their kids to get the best

education they can. Being a child with special needs, especially a child with severe emotional

problems, is an extreme challenge. Hopefully with the right guidance, discipline, understanding,

acceptance, and inclusiveness, that student could learn how to deal, accept, and handle life inside

and outside of the classroom. I also feel that how the Supreme Court ruled in favor of schools

having the authority to intervene when they feel their students’ lives may be endangered, was a

smart decision too.

 5

References

Steketee, A. 2022, January 13. Honig v Doe. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Honig-v-Doe

Wright, Peter W.D., Wright, Pamela Darr. (2022). Honig, California Superintendent of Public

Instruction v. Doe, et al. https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.honig.doe.htm