The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held: Having chosen to extend the right to an education to people of appellees' class generally, Ohio may not withdraw that right on grounds of misconduct or absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred, and must recognize a student's legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause, and that may not be taken away for misconduct without observing minimum procedures required by that Clause.The District Court reprimanded the school for its violation of the 14th Amendment, as there were "minimum requirements of notice and a hearing prior to suspension, except in emergency situations."

The Court stated that protected interests are created not by the Constitution but by its institutions (Board of Regents v. Roth).

but established in a long line of decisions before that case, students "do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door."

He challenged the court's finding that the suspension was severe enough to bring the Due Process Clause into play.

The statute required the student's parents and the Board of Education to be given written notice of the suspension and "reasons therefor" within 24 hours.