Sixth Circuit Addresses For First Time How Fourth Amendment, Student Seizure Applies At Public Schools

On Dec. 18, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a complaint that challenged an expulsion of a student who announced his intention to bring a firearm to school. Halasz v. Cass City Public Schools, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 3677383 (6th Cir. 2025). The student, H.H., alleged that Cass City Public Schools and its officials violated his rights against unreasonable search and seizure when it investigated him, setting the stage for the Court to address for the first time how the Fourth Amendment applies to student seizures in the public school context.

About a week after the deadly shooting at Oxford High School in 2021, students reported that eighth grader H.H. made various comments in class relating to guns. H.H. denied making such comments, but his peers reported that he made statements that he had guns, no one would do anything if he brought a gun to school, he had a fake but metal gun, he had a gun in his bag, and he was thinking about bringing a gun to school.

After the comments were reported to school officials, the Superintendent, a state police lieutenant, and the District's behavioral officer interviewed H.H. He was not read his Miranda rights and was not informed that a criminal investigation was being conducted. H.H. removed his sweatshirt and shoes for a search. He alleged he was instructed to raise his shirt and pull around the waistband of his pants. His backpack and locker were searched. No gun was found. The school's administration determined that H.H. made threatening remarks that violated the student code of conduct. Considering his comments and his disciplinary history, the Board of Education approved the school administration's recommendation for the student's expulsion of 180 days. The Halaszes then sued, alleging violations of H.H.'s Fourth Amendment and due process rights, as well as state law claims.

The Court first addressed H.H.'s Fourth Amendment claim that he was subjected to an unconstitutional search. Students have a right to be free from unreasonable searches by school officials. This claim is subject to a twofold inquiry. The search must first be justified at its inception, meaning that there is a “moderate chance” of finding evidence of wrongdoing (reasonable suspicion). Second, if the search is justified, then the search must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances. The search must not be “excessively intrusive” considering the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.

Here, the Halaszes did not argue that the search was unjustified. Rather, they argued that officials exceeded the scope of what the circumstances warranted. The Court disagreed, holding that all the places searched could have housed a weapon. Additionally, officials tried to maintain H.H.'s physical privacy, as they did not touch him or conduct a more invasive search. Moreover, the failure to read H.H.'s Miranda rights or attempt to contact his parents did not bear upon the intrusiveness. Therefore, he was not subjected to an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Second, regarding H.H.'s claim of unreasonable seizure, the Court noted that “‘[w]e indicated recently that we have ‘never decided in a published opinion whether or how the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable seizures applies in the public-school context.'” As such, Sixth Circuit decided for the first time in a published opinion that a Fourth Amendment seizure occurs in the public school context when a public school “official limits ‘the student's freedom of movement' in a manner that ‘significantly exceed[s] that inherent in everyday, compulsory attendance.'” Such a standard recognizes that “requiring a limitation on movement beyond the typical restriction on students' ability to move about, and outside of, school as they see fit before classifying such a restriction as a ‘seizure' accounts for ‘schools' custodial and tutelary responsibility for children.'” However, a determination must be made as to when a seizure becomes unreasonable. A reasonable seizure must be justified at its inception and be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances.

Here, the Court held the seizure was reasonable. Officials had a “clear justification” to hold H.H. to question him about his comments. Moreover, they only held him for 30 minutes, which was no longer than necessary to investigate. The failure to read his Miranda rights or inform him of a criminal investigation did not alter the Court's conclusion. Therefore, H.H. was not subjected to an unreasonable seizure by school officials.

The Court also addressed and rejected H.H.'s claim that he was deprived of procedural and substantive due process. First, students facing expulsion or suspension are entitled to minimum procedural requirements of notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence, and an opportunity to present their side. This occurred for H.H. However, the Halaszes argued that the superintendent's failure to share police opinion with the Board violated his rights. The Court disagreed, noting that H.H. was expelled because he said he had a gun, not because he possessed one. (“[W]hether he posed a real physical danger to his fellow students is independent of whether he made a comment that sounded like a threat.”). Further, regarding the Halaszes' substantive due process claim, such a claim will only succeed if there is no rational relationship between the publishment and offense. The punishment of an 180-day expulsion bore a rational relationship to H.H.'s comments, particularly given the heightened sensitivity to such comments. The fact that H.H. did not have a gun or bring one to school did not alter the Court's conclusion. The Halaszes also failed on their state law claims because the Court determined that governmental immunity applied.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.