Can a school permanently remove a disabled student for disruptive behavior? The Supreme Court said NO, here's why it matters.
WHAT YOU'LL LEARN IN THIS VIDEO
- Why the Supreme Court ruled against schools in Honig v. Doe (1988)
- What the "stay-put" provision means and how it protects students
- How the 10-day suspension limit works under federal law
- What a Manifestation Determination Review is and when it's required
- How this ruling shifted disciplinary power from schools to courts
- Why states must step in when local districts fail disabled students
In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public schools cannot unilaterally expel or indefinitely suspend students with disabilities for behavior rooted in their disability.
The case, Honig v. Doe, arose in California when two students with emotional disabilities were excluded following outbursts tied directly to their conditions. The Court upheld the "stay-put" provision of the EAHCA, now IDEA, establishing that any removal beyond 10 days constitutes a change in placement requiring full legal protections.
Schools seeking longer removals must petition a court, proving substantial likelihood of injury. The ruling created a dual discipline system, strengthened parental due process rights, and affirmed every disabled student's right to a free appropriate public education. Its core holdings remain active law today.
Learn more about Honig v. Doe 1988 by visiting:
https://kidlaw.org/2026/03/10/honig-v-doe-1988/
Kidlaw Official Website - https://Kidlaw.org
