The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Policy-Making Process in Educational Leadership: An Analysis of Relevant Legal Cases

Jerry L Parker


This article discusses the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and their application in legal cases related to K-12 and higher education. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are important because, among many things, they declare that before any person can be accused of any crime or wrongdoing, he or she must be allowed due process to prove his or her innocence. Without due process, all decisions related to an individual's innocence or guilt are thus null and void. Using content analysis methodology, this research looked at 11 Supreme Court decisions related to due process in education. It was discovered that decisions mainly related to student classification versus self-identification and wrongful termination of faculty and school personnel. The findings of this study help educational leaders at all levels to better understand the vastness of both amendments and how they work in tandem with drafting equitable, equal, inclusive, and fair policies and procedures for all students, faculty, and staff in educational settings.


Due Process; Educational Law; Educational Leadership; Fifth Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment; Higher Education; K-12 Education; Policy Development

Full Text:



A short guide to special education due process. (2004). Phi Delta Kappa Fastbacks (no523). The H.W. Wilson Company.

Alexander, K. & Alexander, M. D. (2012). American Public School Law. 8th Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Banks, J. A. (2019). An Introduction to Multicultural Education (6th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Bateman, D. F. (2010). Due process hearing case study. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42(4), 80-82.

Beilan v. Board of Public Education, School District of Philadelphia, 357 U.S. 399 (1958).

Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969).

Bentz, A. J. M. (2012). The original public meaning of the fifth amendment and pre-miranda silence. Virgina Law Review, 98, 897-934.

Bertrand, M., Perez, W. Y., & Rogers, J. (2015). The covert mechanisms of education policy discourse: Unmasking policy insiders’ discourses and discursive strategies in upholding or challenging racism and classism in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(93), 1-35. doi:

Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al. 347 U.S. 497 (1954).

Brown et al v. Board of Education of Topeka et al 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Byse, C. (1954). Teachers and fifth amendment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 102(7), 871-883.

Covaleskie, J. F. (1994). The educational system and resistance to reform: The limits of policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 2(4), 1-10.

Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961).

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).

Estelle Laba, Et Al. v. The Board of Education of Newark in the County of Essex, 364 F. Supp. 129 (A.2d N.J. 1957).

Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981).

Fifth Amendment. (n.d.) Cornell University Law School. Retrieved from:

Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).

Fourteenth Amendment (n.d.) Cornell University Law School. Retrieved from:

Gaillard, N. B. (2016). Balancing school safety and K-12 public school students’ fourth and fifth amendment rights: Court cases from 2004-2015. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest. (10127908).

Goodwin, R. J. (1987). The fifth amendment in public schools: A rationale for its application in investigation and disciplinary proceedings. William & Mary Law Review, 28(4), 683- 709.

Haddad, W. D. (1995). Education policy-planning process: an applied framework. Retrieved from UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning website:

Hall, M. and Wright, R. F. (2008). Systemic Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions. California Law Review, 96(1), 63-122.

Hoagland-Hanson, K. (2015). Getting their due (process): Parents and lawyers in special education due process hearings in Pennsylvania. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 163,1805- 1842.

JDB v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011).

Julius W. Hobson v. Carl F. Hansen, Superintendent of Schools of District of Columbia, the Board of Education of the District of Columbia et al, 269 F. Supp. 401 (1967).

Kahlenberg, R. D. (Summer 2015). Tenure: How due process protects teachers and students. American Educator, 4-11.

Mialon, H. M. (2005). An economic theory of the fifth amendment. The RAND Journal of Economics, 36(4), 833-848.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Myrna M. (2016) Special education after 40 years: What lies ahead?. Policy priorities: An information breif from ACSD. 22(1). 1-7.

New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985).

Peter Mills et al v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia et al, 348 F. Supp 866 (U.S. DC. 1972).

Piazza, P. (2014). The media got it wrong! A critical discourse analysis of changes to the educational policy making arena. Education policy analysis archives, 22(36), 1-27.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, (1982).

Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982).

Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City. 350 U.S. 551 (1956).

Strauss, P. (n.d.) Due Process. Legal Information Institute: Cornell University Law School. Retrieved from

Taylor, H. (1955). The dismissal of fifth amendment professors. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 300, 79-86.

U.S. Constitution. Amend. XIV, Sec. I.

University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

Vázquez, J. M. (2009). Uso de la investigación en la toma de decisions politicas una aproximación a su studio. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 17(13), 1-25.

Vinovskis, M. A. 1999. History & Educational Policymaking. Yale University. New Haven, CT.

Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (1973).

Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Research Issues in Contemporary Education