Honig v. Doe: Analysis of Case Essay

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

It is important to note that Honig v. Doe case was important in bringing clarity to the Education of the Handicapped Act. Two students with disabilities, John Doe and Jack Smith, were suspended from their school indefinitely due to behavioral problems. Subsequently, they sued the school’s decision on mootness and ‘stay-put’ provisions of the act. The key findings include that mootness is determined by age, whereas the ‘stay-put’ prohibits school authorities from excluding children with disabilities.

The first major finding of the Honig v. Doe case was that claimants in the age range of three to 21 are not moot under the Education of the Handicapped Act. It is stated that “since the Act covered individuals from ages 3 to 21, the claim of a 24-year-old who was no longer in school was moot, but that the claim of a 20-year-old was not moot” (“Honig v. Doe,” n.d., para. 6). In other words, the age factor is what determines the mootness of a case. The second finding is that the ‘stay-put’ provision prohibits local and state school authorities from excluding disabled children, such as suspension, “even for dangerous or disruptive conduct resulting from their disabilities” (“Honig v. Doe,” n.d., para. 6). The opposition argued that the decision endangered able-bodied students’ safety (“Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305.,” 1988). The impact was that state and federal regulations and school district policies became more inclusive educational rights of disabled students.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the ‘stay-put’ prohibits school authorities from excluding children with disabilities, and the mootness of the Education of the Handicapped Act is determined by age. Thus, if a claimant is between three and 21 years old, then the claim is not moot. Despite the opposition and concerns, the decision was a major step towards inclusion and equity with respect to children with disabilities.

References

Honig v. Doe, . (1988). Web.

. (n.d.). Web.

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2024, April 4). Honig v. Doe: Analysis of Case. https://ivypanda.com/essays/honig-v-doe-analysis-of-case/

Work Cited

"Honig v. Doe: Analysis of Case." IvyPanda, 4 Apr. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/honig-v-doe-analysis-of-case/.

References

IvyPanda. (2024) 'Honig v. Doe: Analysis of Case'. 4 April.

References

IvyPanda. 2024. "Honig v. Doe: Analysis of Case." April 4, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/honig-v-doe-analysis-of-case/.

1. IvyPanda. "Honig v. Doe: Analysis of Case." April 4, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/honig-v-doe-analysis-of-case/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Honig v. Doe: Analysis of Case." April 4, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/honig-v-doe-analysis-of-case/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
1 / 1