2. Three girls in Mena Polk County admitted to spiking the punch at an extracurricular activity. The principal, Duddy Waller, suspended the students for a week. During that same day, the Superintendent S.L. Inlow and the school board member held a closed meeting and expelled the three students for the rest of the semester. Neither the parents nor the girls were notified. The parents sued for students to be re-instated back in school and for money. The Supreme Court declared that school officials acted in good faith and hand immunity from a lawsuit against money damages.

3. Did the Board of Special School District of Mena, Arkansas follow appropriate due process procedures when expelling the three teens? Is a school official liable for damages following a decision made – do school officials have immunity?

4. The “Due Process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution “…Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. 1983) “Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, … or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United …to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.” Vs. District policy & “common law” immunity

5. District Court found that the school board did not act “with malice” toward the students and their expulsion proceedings, and therefore were immune to monetary liability. The Court of Appeals required a retrial: “Specific intent to harm wrongfully, it held, was not a requirement for the recovery of damages.” Cert. was granted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled specifically on the issue of liability for school officials – immunity of legislators was determined to be so grounded in history and practice as to be absolute.

6. School board members act occasionally as legislators and judges – in cases of student behavior there is an "obvious need for prompt action, and decisions must be made in reliance on factual information supplied by others.” If financial damages were imposed for every decision that mistakenly violated a students’ right, in cases where the official used traditional sources of factual information, where officials acted in good faith and with proper judgment; then that threat would cause undue fear by school officials that would impair them from exercising judgment independently and in a manner which best serves the school. However, absolute immunity is not justified either in cases where officials are acting in malice.

7. The decision of the Court of Appeals was held as void. The US Supreme Court ruled that school officials had “qualified immunity;” that as long as officials acted in good faith, and without knowledge of their actions’ violating anyone’s constitutional rights, that they were immune from a lawsuit for monetary damages. Questions coming from disciplinary issues should be addressed by local officials and not by the courts.

8. Significance to Future Administrators Officials and teachers can go about their duties as long as they act in good faith, without fear of lawsuits for damages. Even teachers and other school personnel can be held for monetary damages if they do act with malice when making decisions. School officials must be aware of constitutional rights and act in their good faith.