Lewis's parents sued under 1983, claiming that Lewis had been deprived of his life in violation of substantive due process. In other words, they alleged that no matter how much procedure the state used, it was simply not entitled under the federal Constitution to allow its agents to engage in such risky, reckless behavior. The Supreme Court rejected the Lewises' claim in an opinion that emphasized once again how limited the scope of the substantive due process doctrine is. We turn to the latter part of the Court's opinion, because no one claims that Fairfield's actions should be judged under a more specific part of the federal Constitution. The criteria that govern what is fatally arbitrary in the latter cases depend upon whether legislation or a specific act of a governmental officer is at issue.
Negligent conduct can virtually never meet the constitutional threshold.
It therefore found that the Lewises' complaint on behalf of their deceased son did not state a constitutional claim. Although the briefs are not entirely clear on this point, we understand from oral argument that Dunn and McCullough are also asserting a legislative violation of substantive due process rights, insofar as they are attacking Fairfield's written disciplinary classifications and penalty structure. Once again, measured by that standard the school policy that the students attack comes nowhere close to a constitutional violation. That means that Fairfield's decision to stack the deck so that these students would fail Band must be sustained unless it is wholly arbitrary. Here, however, Dunn and McCullough freely conceded that they had violated a school rule, that the rule was designed to preserve discipline in the classroom and to punish student insubordination, and that these were legitimate interests on the part of the school district.