Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-71 (2026)

Suspension or expulsion of pupils

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The superintendent of schools and the principal of a school shall have the power to suspend or expel a pupil for good cause, including misconduct in the school or on school property, as defined in Section 37-11-29, on the road to and from school, or at any school-related activity or event when such conduct by a pupil, in the determination of the superintendent or principal, renders that pupil's presence in the classroom a disruption to the educational environment of the school or a detriment to the best interest and welfare of the pupils and teacher of such class as a whole, or for any reason for which such pupil might be suspended, dismissed or expelled by the school board under state or federal law or any rule, regulation or policy of the local school district. For any suspension of more than ten (10) days or expulsions, a student shall have the right to a due process hearing, be represented by legal counsel, to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses presented by the district. The student and the student's parent, legal guardian or person in custody of the student may appeal suspension of more than ten (10) days and expulsions to the school board. The standard of proof in all disciplinary proceedings shall be substantial evidence. The parent or guardian of the child shall be advised of this right to a hearing by the appropriate superintendent or principal and the proper form shall be provided for requesting such a hearing.

Codes, 1942, §§ 6282-24, 6328-25; Laws, 1953, Ex Sess, ch. 17, § 5, ch. 20, § 24; Laws, 1986, ch. 492, § 83; Laws, 2000, ch. 559, § 2, eff. 7/1/2000.

Amended by Laws, 2017, ch. 357, HB 1413, 1, eff. 7/1/2017.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1985–2019 · leading case: Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Leake Cnty. Sch. Dist., 195 So. 3d 771 (Miss. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Leake Cnty. Sch. Dist., 195 So. 3d 771 (Miss. 2016). · cites it 2× “ANALYSIS 3 The circuit court stated that “[s]ignificant also, is the fact that in order to achieve the goals of protecting students from bull[ies], the district is again called upon to use it’s [sic] discretionary power under 37-9-71.”

Clinton Mun. Separate Sch. Dist. v. Byrd, 477 So. 2d 237 (Miss. 1985). “Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-71 (1972). The legislature has proscribed the limits of punishment for destruction or defacing of school property: Damaging school property.”

Carpenter v. Lyles, 120 So. 3d 1031 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). “2012) (authorizing school activity funds to be used to support school’s official or extracurricular school programs); Miss.Code Ann. § 37-9-71 (Rev.2007) (school possesses authority to suspend or prohibit students from participating in these school related-events occurring…”

M.L.R. v. Pontotoc City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Trs., 46 So. 3d 874 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “Miss.Code Ann. § 37-9-71 (Rev.2007). The state has codified infractions for which a student can be disciplined.”

Harbour as Next Friend of T.D.H v. Tupelo Pub. Sch. Dist., 275 So. 3d 70 (Miss. 2019). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-71 (Supp. 2018). Harbour did not notice the attorney general of the constitutional challenge to the statute.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.