Ingraham v. Wright (1977)

Transcript of interview with James, recounting his experience can be found at

http://www.corpun.com/usscr5.htm

References

10 Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know. New York Times. (2008) Tom Jacobs. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20080915monday.html

INGRAHAM ET AL. v. WRIGHT ET AL. (1977) Retrieved from: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/ingraham.html

Ingraham v. Wright (1977). Retrieved from: http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar17.html

Ingraham v. Wright (n.d) Wikipedia. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingraham_v._Wright

Ingraham v. Wright (No. 75-6527)

525 F.2d 909, affirmed. (n.d.) Legal Information Institute. Cornell University. Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0430_0651_ZS.html

Tortured History: Finding Our Way Back to the

Lost Origins of the Eighth Amendment. (2004)

Celia Rumann. Pepperdine Law Review. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=plr

Impact

The Court left the question of whether to allow corporal punishment up to states and local districts, which traditionally set most education policies. Twenty-two states currently permit corporal punishment in public schools, and 28 have banned the practice.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice White, Brennan, Marshall and Stevens dissented arguing that as a result of this decision corporal punishment in public schools, no matter how severe, can never be the subject of the protections afforded by the Eighth Amendment. Their opinion was that the Eight Amendment declared a "flat prohibition" against "cruel and unusual punishment" with no limiting factors. Opinion was written by Justice Powell.

Rational for the Rulings

This ruling is, nearly 35 year later, still controversial.

The Court examined not the morality of corporal punishment, but rather the narrowly tailored definition of "cruel and unusual". The Court also relied heavily on common law and the assumption of decency rather than establish formal principle.

Rulings

The Supreme Court decided, 5 to 4, not in favor of James. It was concluded that "cruel and unusual" only applied to criminal cases and that "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require notice and hearing prior to imposition of corporal punishment as that practice is authorized and limited by the common law."

Ingraham v. Wright 430 U.S. 651 (1977)

Legal History of the Case

1. The State has a vested interest in preserving what "has always been the law of the land," United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681, 692, 1964.

2. “The Constitution requires, 'if anything, less than a fair-minded school principal would impose upon himself' in order to avoid injustice”, Justice White. Goss v. Lopez, 1975.

3. Examination of intent of the Constitution linking and or limiting "cruel and unusual" to criminal cases.

Legal Question

Is corporal punishment in public schools unconstitutional, especially without advance notice?

Issue: Corporal Punishment

Constitutional Elements:

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Due Process

Facts of the Case

James Ingraham, a 14-year-old eighth-grader at Drew Junior High School in Miami, was taken to the principal's office after a teacher accused him of failing to promptly leave the stage of the school auditorium when asked to do so by a teacher. The principal , in consultation with 2 other male administrators, chose to give him five swats with a paddle. James, claiming he had done nothing wrong, refused. He was subsequently forcibly held down onto a desk by Lemmie Deliford, the assistant principal and Solomon Barnes, an assistant to the principal while the principal gave him up to 20 swats.

Result of the Action

As a result, James suffered severe bruising and infection, was hospitalized and missed school for 10 days. James and his mother sued the principal and other school officials, claiming the paddling violated his Eighth Amendment protections against "cruel and unusual punishments" and that due process was not applied since James had no prior notice of the judgement or punishment, opportunity to defend himself nor present evidence.