No Pass, No Drive?

IN 1990 Kentucky's legislature passed what is commonly called pass, no drive law. More specifically, the statute provides for suspension of the driver's license of any 16- or 17-year-old student who either drops out of school or is declared academically deficient. The statute defines dropping out having nine or more unexcused absences, including days of suspension, during semester. Academic deficiency is defined not receiving passing grades in at least four courses at the end of the semester. The statute provides for the following steps: 1) each semester the building administrator notifies the superintendent of the students who qualify for the suspension of their licenses; 2) within 10 days, the superintendent reports the name and social security number of any such student to the state transportation agency; 3) as soon possible thereafter, the agency notifies the student of the revocation and of the right to hearing for license reinstatement; and 4) within 15 days, state court hearing (with the right to appellate review) is held, if requested, for reinstating the license based on certain specified grounds, such undue economic hardship to the student's family or an erroneous factual finding of academic deficiency. The statute allows license revocation only if the school district has state-approved alternative education program to meet the academic needs of students who cannot succeed in the regular program. Finally, the student may reapply for driver's license after semester of having corrected the dropout or deficiency status. On 28 February 1995, group of affected students filed class action suit challenging the statute. They based their suit on seven grounds, including the due process and equal protection provisions of the Kentucky and federal constitutions. On 12 November 1998, the state trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff students on five grounds, but for the school district and state defendants on the remaining two. Both parties appealed. On 22 June 2001, the state's intermediate appellate court upheld the statute on all of the disputed grounds except one: whether it violated the federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).1 First, the appellate court rejected the plaintiff students' argument that the reinstatement hearing and appeal provisions of the statute deny meaningful review in terms of procedural due process because the court will not affirmatively examine the background behind student's attendance records or grades. Citing the tradition of deference to school officials in academic matters, the court relegated issues of grades and attendance to direct discussion with the student's teacher. Thus the court affirmed that judicial review should be limited to whether clerical error was made. Second, the court also made short shrift of the plaintiffs' alternative argument that the lack of pre-suspension hearing violated the plaintiff students' right to procedural due process. Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent upholding the constitutionality of other license-revocation statutes, the appeals court pointed out that the student's interest is a legitimately regulated privilege, not fundamental right. Moreover, the various steps of the statute provide sufficient opportunities to correct the situation before and after revocation so to limit the probability and effects of an erroneous deprivation, whereas requiring pre-revocation hearing would place an unreasonable fiscal and administrative burden on the government. Third, the appellate court rejected the argument that the statute violated substantive due process. Specifically, the court concluded that the statute had rational relationship to the legitimate objective of encouraging 16- and 17-year-old students to stay in school and get good grades based on the incentive effect of this much- anticipated privilege. …