Week_2_JudicialReview

​


 * Name of Case**: ​Wood v. Strickland ​


 * Citation**: ​420 U.S. 308 (1975) ​​
 * Date**:​1975
 * Facts**: The original case involved a suit filed by two students seeking damages against the administrators and school board members for violating their rights to due process prior to being suspended for "spiking" the punch at an extra-curricular meeting. The District Court ruled in favor of the school board because they found no evidence of malice in their actions. The Court of Appeals stated that malice was not the question, rather, the question was whether or not the school officials acted in good faith. The school board claims that they had absolute immunity from liability. The Supreme Court looked at three cases to determine the extent of immunity. They concluded that sect. 1983 extends "a qualified good-faith immunity" in this case.


 * Issue**: Does "good faith immunity" apply to members of a Board of Education so that actions taken within their responsibilities will not be punished?


 * Holding**: MR. JUSTICE POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN,and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST-"the school officialmust be held to a standard of conduct based not only on good faith 'but also on knowledgeof the basic, unquestioned constitutional rights of his charges. Moreover,ignorance of the law is explicitly equated with 'actual malice.' " The U.S. Supreme Court in Wood v. Strickland dismissed the Court of Appeals decision and sent the case back to the lower courts for further review.

The school board's decision to expel the student was upheld. Stating that the school board had the authority to suspend the student for drinking alcohol and that the lower courts had no right claiming that the school board acted unfairly according to the particular wording of the school regulations.


 * Rationale**:

Regarding __Wood v. Strickland__, the Supreme Court's rationale in extending qualified good-faith immunity focused on the burden placed on school officials if they feared retribution for doing their jobs due to no immunity. The Court recognized that some immunity was necessary to maximize the efficacy of the school officials, but that there is a tipping point. Therefore, the Court did not extend absolute immunity, because it would not further reduce the burden of no immunity. Good-faith immunity is enough to allow school officials to act as they deem appropriate in the moment with the available facts, and without undo fear of liability.


 * Additional Questions/Comments: ** What exactly is the court definition of "good faith"? **

Challenges in summarizing this case: ** It was a bit confusing due to the case passing through different levels of the courts; including a hung jury. District Court>Court of Appeals>Supreme Court.

= Team Meeting Recording-Wednesday, May 19th @ 9:30 =

media type="file" key="Team A-05.19.10.mov" width="180" height="180"