Honig v. Doe (1988) by

November 1980

addycox1116 — 2025-04-18 18:33:48 UTC

John Doe, a student with a behavioral disorder, was a high school student at San Francisco Unified School District. After an emotional disturbance, causing John to choke another student and break a window, John was expelled from SFUSD indefinitely.

December 1980

addycox1116 — 2025-04-18 18:37:01 UTC

Jack Smith was a student at the San Francisco Unified School District. He was a student just like John Doe, with a behavioral disorder. He was expelled from SFUSD after disruptive behavior.

The year 1981

addycox1116 — 2025-04-18 18:42:10 UTC

John Doe filed a lawsuit in the federal district court, saying his expulsion violated the "stay-put" part of the EAHCA (Education for All Handicapped Children Act). Later that year, Jack Smith joined Doe in his efforts.

Ruling of the District Court

addycox1116 — 2025-04-18 18:44:26 UTC

The court ruled a preliminary injunction (a court order issued during the early stages of a lawsuit to maintain the status quo until a final judgment is reached after trial), that reinstated both students in the SFUSD District.

The Court of Appeals

addycox1116 — 2025-04-18 18:46:52 UTC

The court of appeals agreed with the district courts decision, concluding that schools should not suspend or expell students with disabilities for behaviors related to their disabilities without following proper procedures and measures.

November 1987

addycox1116 — 2025-04-18 18:47:52 UTC

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments and disagreements upon the case, and took it upon themselves.

January 20th, 1988

addycox1116 — 2025-04-18 18:49:29 UTC

The Supreme Court ruled a 6-2 decision, affirming the district courts decision along with the court of appeals ruling. They agreed that what SFUSD did violated the EAHCA act.

Reflective Summary

addycox1116 — 2025-04-18 18:55:58 UTC

I researched the court case Honig v. Doe of 1988. As someone who is thinking about going into the Special Education field, this case is extremely important and trivial to our world. However, we first do have to explain some historical context. Back then, students with disabilities were still treated differently, and less than the rest. They didn’t have the same opportunities and resources that students do now. The reason this case is so historically significant is because it was the first case ever that addressed unfair punishment for students with disabilities and the discipline they face because of their said disability. It affirmed protection for students with disabilities across the nation. The reason this case is so trivial for educators to recall is because it reminds them of their responsibilities and roles in their students' lives. The social implications of this case meant greater protection for students with disabilities within their education, and that’s a big deal. In conclusion, this case affirmed the “stay-put” provision within the EAHCA, emphasizing it;s importance.