Parents Challenge Expulsion: Lessons From a Recent Michigan Case

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently ruled that a school did not violate a student’s Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights or his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights when it expelled him for making a threat about bringing a gun to school. Halasz v Cass City Public Schools, Case No. 1:22-cv-13158 (May 23, 2025). The decision provides useful reminders about making legally sound student discipline decisions.

On December 6, 2021, a week after the Oxford High School shooting, Cass City High School spent a portion of the school day discussing the tragedy and providing school safety information to its students. Later that day, a student made a remark about bringing a gun to school. At least four other students understood this comment to be a threat and reported it to their parents or school administrators.

Administration alerted law enforcement, which responded to the school and conducted a joint interview of the student with school officials. Law enforcement later determined there was no basis for criminal charges. The school suspended the student pending a board expulsion hearing. The board expelled the student for 180 days. The student and his parents sued the school and various school administrators.

Search and Seizure Issues

The student claimed that the school improperly searched his person, backpack, and locker. The search of his person involved school staff directing him to remove his sweatshirt (the student was wearing a shirt underneath) and his boots. The student also alleged improper seizure because he was kept in the school office for approximately 30 minutes during the interview and searches.

The court considered the justification for and scope of each search to determine whether it was reasonable. While school officials can search a student’s locker at any time, searching a student’s person or property in a school setting is only justified if school administration reasonably suspects that the student engaged in misconduct and that the search will uncover evidence of wrongdoing. This is a lower standard than the probable cause standard that typically applies to law enforcement searches outside schools. Here, the court found that reports from four students stating that the student said either that he had a gun or was going to bring a gun to school justified the search.

The court also found that the scope of the search was appropriate. The search took no more than ten minutes in total and all locations searched could reasonably have concealed a gun.

Seizure in the school setting occurs when school officials limit a student’s freedom of movement in a way that significantly exceeds the restriction “inherent in every-day compulsory attendance.” By confining the student to the school office for approximately 30 minutes and not letting him leave, the school seized the student. The court found that the seizure was not unreasonable because the student was held in the office no longer than necessary to conduct the searches and question him about his remarks.

Due Process Issues

The student also alleged that his substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when the school expelled him. The student established that the school’s actions deprived him of his legitimate property interest in a free public school education, but he was unable to convince the court that the deprivation violated either his substantive or procedural due process rights.

School officials violate a student’s substantive due process rights if they take action that lacks any rational basis, and is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious. In the context of school discipline, this is a high standard, and a situation where there is no rational relationship between the discipline and the offense is rare. Here, the court held that the context of a recent school shooting made the student’s remarks “significantly” more serious, and the discipline more rational, than it might otherwise have been.

In considering whether the student’s procedural due process rights had been violated, the court expressed concern that school administrators had not shared with the board the police’s determination that the student did not pose an immediate danger to the school. The court’s concern, however, was not significant enough to overcome the governmental immunity that protects the school’s administration from liability.

Takeaways

• Student searches must be justified at their inception. School officials should consider the nature of the report and the source of information when assessing whether a search is justified. For example, a parent’s report that a student “looks suspicious” or is “probably” violating the law or board policy will likely not justify a search. However, a credible report that someone saw a student shove a knife into a backpack at the bus stop will likely justify a search of the backpack.
• Searches must be reasonable in scope. Do not search for a machete in a small purse. Do not read a student’s entire text message history if the report is that the student had a photograph of test answers. Do not conduct an invasive search of a student’s person. Having a student remove a coat or turn pockets inside out will likely be reasonable, but pulling back the waist band of both pants and undergarments may not be reasonable. If a more invasive search is necessary, turn it over to law enforcement.
• Do not strip search students! Ever!
• Before issuing discipline, provide the board and student with all relevant evidence in the school’s possession, including police reports or relevant law enforcement statements. Ensure that the student has an opportunity to respond to all evidence to avoid any procedural due process claim.

Review the discipline sections of board policy, administrative guidelines, and student handbooks for consistency. Inconsistencies can lead to confusion and increase the possibility of due process claims. Summer vacation is a good time to review policy and handbook language to ensure that they are consistent and reflect your school’s current practices.