Carey v. Piphus
55 L. Ed. 2d 252 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
Facts
Jarius Piphus, a freshman at Chicago Vocational High School, was seen by his principal passing an irregularly shaped cigarette and trying to pass cigarette papers to another student. The principal smelled burning marihuana. Piphus was given a 20-day suspension for violating the school's drug rule without a hearing to determine guilt, despite his protests. Silas Brisco, a sixth grader at Clara Barton Elementary School, was suspended for 20 days for wearing an earring, which violated a school rule against male students wearing earrings, without a hearing. Brisco refused to remove the earring, stating it was a symbol of black pride. Both students, through their mothers, filed suit in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they were suspended without due process of law.
Procedural history
Piphus and Brisco filed suit in Federal District Court, which consolidated their cases. The District Court found that both students were suspended without procedural due process but declined to award damages due to lack of proof of injury, dismissing the complaints. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeals held that even if the suspensions were justified, respondents were entitled to substantial non-punitive damages for the denial of procedural due process without proof of individualized injury. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the damages issue.
Issue
The legal question is whether, in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must prove actual injury caused by the deprivation to recover substantial non-punitive damages.
Holding
The Court held that in the absence of proof of actual injury, students are entitled to recover only nominal damages for a procedural due process violation. If the suspensions were justified, the students are still entitled to nominal damages not exceeding one dollar.
Rule
The basic purpose of a § 1983 damages award is to compensate persons for injuries caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights, mirroring common law tort principles. To recover substantial non-punitive damages for a procedural due process violation, a plaintiff must prove actual injury, such as mental and emotional distress, caused by the denial of due process itself. Such injury cannot be presumed. However, because the right to procedural due process is absolute and important, its denial is actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury, even if the underlying deprivation was justified.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.