On Board Online • February 23, 2026

By Shubh N. McTague
Staff Counsel

Pursuant to Education Law, a decision to suspend a student from school for more than five days must be based on "substantial and competent evidence" that the student participated in the objectionable conduct. However, does this standard pass federal constitutional muster?

In Y.H. v. Aviles-Ramos, three students challenged the validity of this standard in student disciplinary hearings, alleging that it violates their federal constitutional right to due process.

A federal district court in the Southern District of New York (which encompasses the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx, as well as Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, and Westchester counties) dismissed the case. It found that the procedural due process protections available to New York public school students subject to disciplinary proceedings complies with due process protections under the U.S. Constitution.

The court discussed how this evidentiary standard came to apply to student discipline. It noted that, pursuant to New York law, decisions by state administrative agencies must consider the whole record and be supported by substantial evidence. This language has been interpreted by a New York State appellate court to mean that hearing officers in student disciplinary hearings must use the same standard of substantial and competent evidence.

The court noted that substantial evidence has been defined as "more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance" of the evidence. In general terms, that can be restated as more than a little bit but less than a standard of more likely than not.

The three students in Y.H. were charged with different types of misconduct, and were suspended for 10 days, 16 days and 17 days, respectively. They alleged that the school district's burden of proof did not comport with federal due process rights.

In addressing this right, the district court noted that in a 1975 case that dealt with suspensions of less than 10 days, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that students only need to be provided with "rudimentary" due process procedures, such as "oral or written notice of the charges against [them] and, if [denied], an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present [their] side of the story."

A year later, in another case, the U.S. Supreme Court set forth a balancing test to determine if an individual's procedural due process rights under the federal Constitution are violated and looked at three factors: (1) the private interest affected by the administrative action, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation resulting from the administrative action, and (3) the government's interest in limiting procedural burdens and administrative costs.

The district court in Y.H. used these factors to analyze whether there was a federal due process violation in using the "substantial and competent evidence" standard:

• Under factor one, the private interest affected was significant but also modest in that students were still receiving some form of education during their suspension.
• Regarding factor two, while the district court acknowledged that a higher standard could decrease the risk of the deprivation of a student's rights involving school discipline, it stated that New York has a "robust administrative process governing public school suspensions[.]" As such, it reduces the risk of violating a student's rights.
• As to the final factor, the district court stated that requiring a higher standard of proof would burden the school discipline process. Specifically, imposing additional requirements would hinder school officials from resolving disputes quickly, safely and effectively and could negatively impact other students.

Accordingly, the district court concluded that the "substantial and competent evidence" standard satisfied the requirements of due process under the U.S. Constitution.

The court also stated that New York State case law supports the federal constitutionality of this standard. Specifically, in April 2002, in Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., the Appellate Division, Third Department, ruled that the substantial and competent standard as applied in student disciplinary hearings did not "violate a student's constitutional right to due process." That case was not appealed to the New York State Court of Appeals.

Other federal courts outside of New York have found the substantial evidence standard in school suspension cases to comply with federal due process requirements. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with jurisdiction over New York, have specifically ruled on the federal constitutionality of this standard within the student disciplinary hearing context.