Although it did not cite the case as authority, the Court of Appeals was apparently applying the due process rationale of Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 206 (1960), to the public school disciplinary process. In McLaughlin v. Tilendis, 398 F.2d 287, 290-291 (CA7 1968), a case relied upon by the Court of Appeals below, the immunity was extended to school board members and the superintendent of schools only to the extent that they could establish that their decisions were founded on "justifiable grounds." The opinion indicates that actual malice is presumed where one acts in ignorance of the law; thus, it would appear that even good faith reliance on the advice of counsel is of no avail. 953, 964 (ND Ohio 1970); Gouge v. Joint School District No. This harsh standard, requiring knowledge of what is characterized as "settled, indisputable law," leaves little substance to the doctrine of qualified immunity. As with executive officers faced with instances of civil disorder, school officials, confronted with student behavior causing or threatening disruption, also have an "obvious need for prompt action, and decisions must be made in reliance on factual information supplied by others." Despite its construction of the present regulation, the Court of Appeals indicated that the school board had the authority to prohibit the use and possession of alcoholic beverages or to continue its policy of proscribing only intoxicating beverages. Specific intent to harm wrongfully, it held, was not a requirement for the recovery of damages. Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra, at 416 U. S. 246 (footnote omitted). After weighing the competing claims, the Court concluded: There are some 20,000 school boards, each with five or more members, and thousands of school superintendents and school principals. The girls had admitted that they intended to "spike" the punch and that they had mixed malt liquor into the punch that was served. most conscientious school decisionmaker from exercising his judgment independently, forcefully, and in a manner best serving the long-term interest of the school and the students.

The District Court directed verdicts for petitioners on the ground that they were immune from damages suits absent proof of malice in the sense of ill will toward respondents. The official himself must be acting sincerely and with a belief that he is doing right, but an act violating a student's constitutional rights can be no more justified by ignorance or disregard of settled, indisputable law on the part of one entrusted with supervision of students' daily lives than by the presence of actual malice. Id., at 253. Stat. Therefore, in the specific context of school discipline, we hold that a school board member is not immune from liability for damages under § 1983 if he knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the student affected, or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the student. White, Local School Boards: Organization and Practices 8 (U.S. Office of Education, OE-23023, Bulletin No. Pp. . Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S., at 557. Inlow informed the meeting of the news, although he did not mention the name of the girl involved. The adoption of the regulation was at a time when the school board was concerned with a previous beer-drinking episode.

Ten days later, Mrs. Curtis Powell, a teacher at the high school, learned of the prank and confronted the girls. 1972); Schreiber v. Joint School District No. Security, Unique 120 n. 2. ] The opinion indicates that actual malice is presumed where one acts in ignorance of the law; thus it would appear that even good-faith reliance on the advice of counsel is of no avail. Although first denying any knowledge, the girls admitted their involvement after the teacher said that she would handle the punishment herself. The limits of §§ 1 and 2 of the 1871 statute . document.write("2005-06 - "+yr);

MR. JUSTICE POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Tr. Such a standard neither imposes an unfair burden upon a person assuming a responsible public office requiring a high degree of intelligence and judgment for the proper fulfillment of its duties, nor an unwarranted burden in light of the value which civil rights have in our legal system. The Court of Appeals interpreted the school regulation prohibiting the use or possession of intoxicating beverages as being linked to the definition of "intoxicating liquor" under Arkansas statutes which restrict the term to beverages with an alcoholic content exceeding 5% by weight. In a joint motion for a new trial, respondents specifically argued that the District Court had erred in treating the case as one Page 315 for the recovery of damages only and in failing to give them a trial and ruling on their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. We essentially sustain the position of the Court of Appeals with respect to the immunity issue. ", "2. 745, 748 (ED Wis. 1972); Endicott v. Van Petten, 330 F. Supp. Moreover, the immunity question involves the construction of a federal statute, and our practice is to deal with possibly dispositive statutory issues before reaching questions turning on the construction of the Constitution. 11-12. Certiorari was granted to consider whether this application of due process by the Court of Appeals was warranted and whether that court's expression of a standard governing immunity for school board members from liability. also 68 Am. at 119, 121 (Crain). Supp., at 248.

419 App. If they did not go to him then, however, she would not be able to help them if the incident became "distorted." [420 The girls did so, and Mr. Waller suspended them for two weeks pending a decision by the school board.

1971); R. Hamilton & E. Reutter, Legal Aspects of School Board Operation 190-191 (1958). [ No evidence was presented at either meeting to establish the alcoholic content of the liquid brought to the campus. Ante at 420 U. S. 321. The relevant facts begin with their discovery that the punch had not been prepared for the meeting as previously planned. This Court has decided three cases dealing with the scope of the immunity protecting various types of governmental officials from liability for damages under § 1983. Since the District Court did not discuss whether there was a procedural due process violation, and the Court of Appeals did not decide the issue, the Court of Appeals, rather than this Court, should consider that question in the first instance. MR. JUSTICE POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. He suspended them from school for a maximum two-week period, subject to the decision of the school board.

] The overwhelming majority of school board members are elected to office. 24. Cf. Ann. 20   of Oral Arg. . White, Local School Boards: Organization and Practices 8 (U.S. Office of Education, OE-23023, Bulletin No.

Most of the school board members across the country receive little or no monetary compensation for their service. U.S. 367