Now, At Your Fingertips
For years we've helped you stay on top of citations and case digests for all current education law decisions reported by state and federal courts of record in the U.S. Now, as an added benefit of membership, use this searchable database. It's an adjunct resource to the Student Law Review. Everything reported in SLR can be accessed digitally. Copy it, print it or bookmark it for future reference. Use the Advanced Search tool to instantly find what you're looking for.
Members, to use this section, please log in. From the SLR Express landing page you can begin a keyword search, or narrow your search by choosing Elementary & Secondary or Higher Education from the left menu, then your choice of topic.
Non-members, you are welcome to browse our Featured Articles and gain insight into the law as well as what a membership in ELA can add to your level of knowledge.
To see all content, you must be a member of ELA. Join now!
Due process is no grounds for claims arising from "paddling," even if injurious.
Clayton v. Tate County School District
No. 13-60608 (5th Cir. Mar. 25, 2014)
"Fifth Circuit Rules No Constitutional Cause of Action for Excessive Corporal Punishment at School – Even in Mississippi, Which Has the Highest Paddling Rate in the United States"
By Richard Fossey, J.D., Ed.D.
Paul Burdin Endowed Professor of Education
Twyla Williams-Damond, Ed.D.
University of Louisiana at Lafayette
In an unpublished opinion dated March 25, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Mississippi student’s claims that the paddling he received at school violated his constitutional rights. Clayton v. Tate County School District, No. 13-60608 (5th Cir. Mar. 25, 2014). Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977), the Fifth Circuit rejected the student’s claim that the paddling violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment as well as his claim that he was denied procedural due process of law. In addition, the court rejected the student’s argument that his equal protection rights were violated and his claim that the severity of the punishment violated his right to substantive due process.