due process does apply with suspensions from schools (Goss v. Lopez) under the idea of a liberty and property interest
Anthony Knox and dad drama
- Thread starter jmadden1998
- Start date
^ However i think Knox not being suspended is a joke
Pfft. Outdone by teammate and fellow Cornell commit Rocco Dellagatta (is there any name more fitting for Joisey?) at 285:
Quarterfinal - Rocco Dellagata (Saint John Vianney) 27-0 won by fall over Trevor Butler (Gloucester City JR/SR) 19-10 (Fall 1:14)
Semifinal - Rocco Dellagata (Saint John Vianney) 27-0 won by fall over Mike Seeley (Lacey Township) 31-9 (Fall 0:52)
1st Place Match - Rocco Dellagata (Saint John Vianney) 27-0 won by tech fall over James Lynch (Toms River East H.S.) 33-3 (TF-1.5 3:55 (18-2))
Goss v. Lopez may not stand for the due process principle you think it does. SCOTUS held in that case that Ohio law provided residents with a right to an education (not sports participation) at a public (not private) high school and that educational right could not be taken away (e.g., by suspending a student from school) without some minimum due process procedures under the 14th Amendment.
For a suspension from public school of 10 days or less, the court held that due process requires a student to be given oral or written notice of the allegation against him and, if he denies the allegation, he must be given an explanation of the evidence the school is relying on and an opportunity to present his version. Pretty minimal due process. But Ohio law didn’t require any of that before a principal could suspend students and SCOTUS struck it down.
So, the due process principle in Goss relates to deprivation of educational benefits at a public school. The 14th Amendment due process clause applies to state action, not private action.
It’s my understanding that Knox attends Saint John Vianney High School, a private Catholic school in NJ. It’s possible that NJ could have state law that provides similar protections as the 14 Amend., but I’m not familiar with NJ state law.
I haven’t read the court’s opinion that allowed Knox to compete for now, but it sounds like it might be on sketchy legal footing, at least from a federal law perspective.
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)
Goss v. Lopez: Due process provides a property right for students in their education, so a hearing is required before they are deprived of it.
supreme.justia.com
Little known fact: Rocco is actually his middle name….Given name is Vincenzo!
Embattled wrestling champion pulls disappearing act at Region 7 tournament
Knox wins fourth regional wrestling championship then skips podium photo
Medal ceremony (not podium ceremony!) on the mat video shows applause, not boos.
Goss v. Lopez may not stand for the due process principle you think it does. SCOTUS held in that case that Ohio law provided residents with a right to an education (not sports participation) at a public (not private) high school and that educational right could not be taken away (e.g., by suspending a student from school) without some minimum due process procedures under the 14th Amendment.
For a suspension from public school of 10 days or less, the court held that due process requires a student to be given oral or written notice of the allegation against him and, if he denies the allegation, he must be given an explanation of the evidence the school is relying on and an opportunity to present his version. Pretty minimal due process. But Ohio law didn’t require any of that before a principal could suspend students and SCOTUS struck it down.
So, the due process principle in Goss relates to deprivation of educational benefits at a public school. The 14th Amendment due process clause applies to state action, not private action.
It’s my understanding that Knox attends Saint John Vianney High School, a private Catholic school in NJ. It’s possible that NJ could have state law that provides similar protections as the 14 Amend., but I’m not familiar with NJ state law.
I haven’t read the court’s opinion that allowed Knox to compete for now, but it sounds like it might be on sketchy legal footing, at least from a federal law perspective.
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)
Goss v. Lopez: Due process provides a property right for students in their education, so a hearing is required before they are deprived of it.
The judge merely granted a stay - he didn't rule in either direction, so he's competing pending the courts ruling. I'm not sure whether NJ is attempting to criminally prosecute Knox Jr for assault (or how old Knox Jr is) or if he was issued a summons of any kind, but IMO the Judges hands were tied a bit if NJ wasn't going after Knox Jr criminally as the NJSIAA cited a pretty weak reason for the suspension (i.e., leaving the bench during a competition) - had they cited a criminal charge, I doubt the Judge grants a stay of execution of the suspension pending the court hearing (Knox sued the NJSIAA in civil court). The rule violation cited for the suspension, Leaving The Bench Area, wouldn't really apply to a Tournament Format where the competitor had already completed his competitive matches for the day and is free to go wherever he wants (teams aren't in one place in such a setting, there are multiple mats on gym/arena floor) - the rule more applies to Dual Meet setting, which this was not. Again, if the State was pressing some sort of charge (which I'm not sure they are) and this was the reason cited, I doubt the Judge grants the stay, but as it was, the NJSIAA cited a very weak cause for the suspension so I'm not sure the Judge had any choice but to grant the stay pending the hearing.
Regarding the public private distinction, I believe it matters less that the school itself is private if the school participates in a sport where the sport's governing body is considered a state actor. The NJSIAA, a nonprofit like most high school sports government bodies, receives state funds and satisfies the state actor requirement.Goss v. Lopez may not stand for the due process principle you think it does. SCOTUS held in that case that Ohio law provided residents with a right to an education (not sports participation) at a public (not private) high school and that educational right could not be taken away (e.g., by suspending a student from school) without some minimum due process procedures under the 14th Amendment.
For a suspension from public school of 10 days or less, the court held that due process requires a student to be given oral or written notice of the allegation against him and, if he denies the allegation, he must be given an explanation of the evidence the school is relying on and an opportunity to present his version. Pretty minimal due process. But Ohio law didn’t require any of that before a principal could suspend students and SCOTUS struck it down.
So, the due process principle in Goss relates to deprivation of educational benefits at a public school. The 14th Amendment due process clause applies to state action, not private action.
It’s my understanding that Knox attends Saint John Vianney High School, a private Catholic school in NJ. It’s possible that NJ could have state law that provides similar protections as the 14 Amend., but I’m not familiar with NJ state law.
I haven’t read the court’s opinion that allowed Knox to compete for now, but it sounds like it might be on sketchy legal footing, at least from a federal law perspective.
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)
Goss v. Lopez: Due process provides a property right for students in their education, so a hearing is required before they are deprived of it.
The other key distinction you raised is sports vs education. PA at least recognizes athletics as being included within a school's educational mission, thus elevating it to a right as opposed to a privilege, and thus requiring procedural due process for any athletic suspensions. Based on the judge's decision here, NJ appears to recognize sports as falling within the educational mission as well. Somewhat contradictorily, the court also recognizes that there is no generalized constitutional right to participate n high school sports.
Here, the court found that the due process violation occurred when the NJSIAA failed to inform Knox of the investigation.
But here's the problem and why this decision isn't great. The investigation was opened either Feb 22 or 23. Knox's attorney found out about the investigation on Feb 23. The attorney was given the opportunity to submit evidence and did submit evidence (albeit past the deadline), but which evidence was indeed factored into the decision to disqualify. The court appears to be imposing an obligation on NJSIAA to provide notice of an investigation practically simultaneous with its commencement. A good lawyer can perhaps create a due process violation by beating the investigators to the punch by notifying them that they found out about the investigation before being told.
The court also makes much of the contours of the hearing Knox received, such as the fact that their side wasn't provided evidence that the NJSIAA had gathered and an opportunity to review. The court cites N.J. Stat. § 18A:11-3 in support, but that statute merely sets forth how appeals are brought in instances involving "voluntary associations" such as the NJSIAA.
Tl:dr, I agree there's a due process right at issue here, though you have to strain a bit to get there on both fronts (by conflating sports with education and conflating private school with public), but I think most courts would have found that NJSIAA met it's obligations.
Last edited:
Good post. Words mean things especially in legal proceedings. In legal proceedings, the words are what truly matter. NJSIAA citing a rule that is really not applicable to a tournament setting instead of citing the fact that he entered the stands and was allegedly fighting actually made it easy for the judge to not suspend Knox via an outright ruling or punting the decision. Its almost as if NJSIAA really did not want to suspend Knox and now gets to say "we tried, blame it on the judge".
No doubt it would have helped if Knox was facing a criminal charge.
This is what they called our family when we bought in Naples. I thought it was a compliment but now I'm beginning to wonder...
Another awesome example of rewarding and enabling bad behavior.
I agree with you. I don’t know if it applies for Sports or this case. The “property” idea of future earnings/education opportunities could maybe apply to a state postseason tournament? But in this case I don’t think due process really needs to be considered that much the kid clearly was in the crowd swinging at people. Also I believe SJV hasn’t suspended Knox and it was NJSIAA that had their suspension overruledGoss v. Lopez may not stand for the due process principle you think it does. SCOTUS held in that case that Ohio law provided residents with a right to an education (not sports participation) at a public (not private) high school and that educational right could not be taken away (e.g., by suspending a student from school) without some minimum due process procedures under the 14th Amendment.
For a suspension from public school of 10 days or less, the court held that due process requires a student to be given oral or written notice of the allegation against him and, if he denies the allegation, he must be given an explanation of the evidence the school is relying on and an opportunity to present his version. Pretty minimal due process. But Ohio law didn’t require any of that before a principal could suspend students and SCOTUS struck it down.
So, the due process principle in Goss relates to deprivation of educational benefits at a public school. The 14th Amendment due process clause applies to state action, not private action.
It’s my understanding that Knox attends Saint John Vianney High School, a private Catholic school in NJ. It’s possible that NJ could have state law that provides similar protections as the 14 Amend., but I’m not familiar with NJ state law.
I haven’t read the court’s opinion that allowed Knox to compete for now, but it sounds like it might be on sketchy legal footing, at least from a federal law perspective.
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)
Goss v. Lopez: Due process provides a property right for students in their education, so a hearing is required before they are deprived of it.
There was a heck of a lot of good wrestling this weekend, and we're still arguing about whether it's ok to throw haymakers in the stands. I think we've lost our focus, fellas.
Thank you I have been waiting for your input on this. It is a weird situation where I can see how the decision was made but it feels more based in “this kid is good at wrestling” vibes than anything else
In the early 1980s I was with a couple of friends over in a bar in Jersey(drinking age was 18). We were country hicks wearing flannel, and shit stompers. A buddy of mine gets into a verbal argument. The guy he's yapping with says "Shut up Jethro". I couldn't stop laughing.
Last edited:
@tikk10:Legal stuff:: @SlipperyPete12: PBP:: @RoarLions1:Seed analysis
Last edited:
Procedural due process, if indeed owed, would need to be considered even if he murdered people in the crowd.
Like I said above, there probably is a due process right owed to Knox here, but most judges probably would've found that NJSIAA met it because (a) the court can't point to any authority that imposes the degree of due process it imposed here; and (b) courts generally defer to sports governing bodies in fact-intensive cases.
And even if a judge came to the opposite conclusion, most would have done a better job arriving at that conclusion. This reads to me like a court deciding the outcome and then cobbling pieces of law together that don't quite fit to justify that decision.
I think NJSIAA will appeal because, irrespective of whatever happens with Knox, this decision invites parents to start using the courts to second guess all sorts of ordinary decisions made by sports governing bodies. The bar should be higher than this court set it.
@Cstroke life advice.
@pawrestlersintn Cstroke advice
Yea this is what confuses me about the decision. It feels as if they are requiring procedures that extend what anyone would expect to meet the due process standard for a high school sports investigation/suspension
If NJSIAA is anything like PIAA or NCAA, then they're both control freaks and not nearly clever enough to delegate without delegating.
Most likely an admin got lazy and thoughtlessly used the same wording they always do in such situations.
When I went to school you could fight every damn day and not get suspended.
Then for a few years there you couldn't even call somebody a retard without getting expelled.
Maybe we are going back to the old days??
Then for a few years there you couldn't even call somebody a retard without getting expelled.
Maybe we are going back to the old days??
Not true, the Knox's are challenging the applicability of the violation cited by the NJSIAA (NJSIAA cited a rule forbidding a competitor from leaving the bench area while competition is in progress. The event this happened at was in a Tournament setting, not a Dual Meet. Knox's competition day was done at the time of the incident and he was free to leave the floor area whenever he wanted - he was free to go to the concession area outside the floor.... the stands.... he could have left the building for that matter. The rule NJSIAA cited does not appear to be applicable to the situation in question.). By not giving him a chance to respond to their allegation, they pretty clearly denied him "due process" given that the rule violation cited does not even appear to be applicable to the situation. The Judge clearly believes they have a good chance of winning their suit against the NJSIAA based on their filing otherwise he would not have granted a stay (not a lawyer, but I believe a Judge only grants a stay when he believes not granting one would create harm that can't be undone and the party asking for the stay appears to have a legitimate chance of winning. ).
Last edited:
Under no circumstance should anyone call anyone else a retard.
Has NJ charged Knox Jr with anything? If NJ hasn't charge Knox Jr with anything (not even a misdemeanor), law enforcement has left the Court, NJSIAA and the school in a very bad position... People on here keep saying he should be suspended because he assaulted someone, but that isn't what NJ law enforcement is saying, nor the NJSIAA.... NJSIAA is attempting to suspend him for a NJSIAA Rules Infraction that likely does not apply to the situation.
Many of you are lathered up at the school, but it is NJ Law Enforcement who deserves the most blame here for treating the altercation like it was nothing when criminal laws clearly seem to have been broken... if I were one of the parents of the HS kid who took the beating at the hands of young Knox, I'd be upset as their grounds for a civil suit have been greatly weakened.
Many of you are lathered up at the school, but it is NJ Law Enforcement who deserves the most blame here for treating the altercation like it was nothing when criminal laws clearly seem to have been broken... if I were one of the parents of the HS kid who took the beating at the hands of young Knox, I'd be upset as their grounds for a civil suit have been greatly weakened.
Last edited:
It looks like NJSIAA did appeal:
NJSIAA requests ‘stay,’ says Judge didn’t understand rules in controversial wrestling decision
The NJSIAA filed a request for a stay of the ruling hours after Knox was allowed to wrestle.
Interesting, thanks. I didn't know enough about the internal NJSIAA rules that the appeal is based on, but interesting that they're calling the judge out for mistakenly finding that "Knox was not notified of the investigation and potential disqualification." That finding was what he hung his due process hat on. If he's wrong about that, the appeal gets even easier.It looks like NJSIAA did appeal:
NJSIAA requests ‘stay,’ says Judge didn’t understand rules in controversial wrestling decision
The NJSIAA filed a request for a stay of the ruling hours after Knox was allowed to wrestle.www.nj.com
Last edited:
Key graph:It looks like NJSIAA did appeal:
NJSIAA requests ‘stay,’ says Judge didn’t understand rules in controversial wrestling decision
The NJSIAA filed a request for a stay of the ruling hours after Knox was allowed to wrestle.
"But the ruling, the NJSIAA says, sets an ugly precedent that “all unsportsmanlike behavior can be excused using the sword of an Order to Show Cause” — and would, in effect, make it impossible for the NJSIAA and the state’s Chancery Court system to manage hearing, on average, the more than 450 disqualifications issued each year by the NJSIAA."
Now that the police have charged him with assault, I think his goose is cooked in regards to proceeding into the State Tournament.
and yet here you are on page 7 of a thread devoted specifically to this subject ...
No disrespect, but I will never understand posters coming into a thread simply to say they don't care about the thread.
Last edited:
What is not to understand? I post the exact same "I Don't Care" on every thread that goes over 2 pages. I do it so people will care that I don't. Duhhh
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Podcast Jerquaden Guilford Decommits + Top Targets To Replace Him- Latest: NittanyNation51
-