In Honig v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that schools cannot expel students for behavior related to their disabilities and must provide them with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The case involved two emotionally disturbed students from San Francisco who had been expelled due to violent and disruptive behavior linked to their disabilities. The court held that under the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (now known as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), states are required to educate all children regardless of their physical or mental challenges unless they pose a threat of injury to themselves or others. This decision reinforced the rights of disabled students, ensuring they receive necessary educational services without being unfairly disciplined for behaviors associated with their conditions.

In the dissenting opinion for Honig v. Doe, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by interpreting the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) to include a "stay-put" provision that prevents schools from suspending or expelling students with disabilities for more than 10 days without parental consent or court order. He contended this interpretation was not supported by the text of EAHCA and went beyond Congress's intent when it passed the law. Scalia also expressed concern about potential negative consequences of such an expansive reading, including undermining school discipline policies and placing undue burdens on teachers and administrators who must manage disruptive behavior in classrooms. Furthermore, he noted that this ruling could potentially infrive upon states' rights to set their own education policies.