BoardofEducationv.Earls–TheFourthAmendmentandJudicialProcess
Overview
Inthislesson,studentswillexploretheSupremeCourtcaseBoardofEducationv.Earls,inwhichhighschool
sophomoreLindsayEarlschallengedherschool’sdrugtestingpolicy.Studentswillwatchadocumentaryonthe
case,applytheFourthAmendmenttothecase,andfurthertheirunderstandingbyparticipationinactivities
suchascreatingananti-drugcampaignandamootcourtormocktrial.
Grades
10-11
NCEssentialStandardsforAmericanHistory:TheFoundingPrinciples,CivicsandEconomics
• FP.C&G.1.4:AnalyzetheprinciplesandidealsunderlyingAmericandemocracyintermsofhowthey
promotefreedom
• FP.C&G.2.3:EvaluatetheU.S.Constitutionasa“livingConstitution”intermsofhowthewordsinthe
ConstitutionandBillofRightshavebeeninterpretedandappliedthroughouttheirexistence
• FP.C&G.2.7:Analyzecontemporaryissuesandgovernmentalresponsesatthelocal,state,andnational
levelsintermsofhowtheypromotethepublicinterestand/orgeneralwelfare
• FP.C&G.3.4:Explainhowindividualrightsareprotectedbyvarietiesoflaw
• FP.C&G.3.8:Evaluatetherightsofindividualsintermsofhowwellthoserightshavebeenupheldby
democraticgovernmentintheUnitedStates.
• FP.C&G.5.2:Analyzestateandfederalcourtsbyoutliningtheirjurisdictionsandtheadversarialnatureof
thejudicialprocess.
NCEssentialStandardsforAmericanHistoryII
• AH2.H.2.1:Analyzekeypolitical,economic,andsocialturningpointssincetheendofReconstructionin
termsofcausesandeffects(e.g.,conflicts,legislation,elections,innovations,leadership,movements,
SupremeCourtdecisions,etc.).
• AH2.H.2.2:EvaluatekeyturningpointssincetheendofReconstructionintermsoftheirlastingimpact
(e.g.,conflicts,legislation,elections,innovations,leadership,movements,SupremeCourtdecisions,etc.).
EssentialQuestions
• WhatistheroleoftheSupremeCourt?
• WhatisthebasicstructureoftheFederalCourtSystem?
• WhatistheBillofRights?
• WhatpurposedoestheFourthAmendmentserve?
• Whyisprotectionofone’sprivacyimportant?
• Shoulddrugtestingwithoutsuspicionbeallowedinschools?Ifso,underwhatcircumstances?
• Howaretheconstitutionalrightsofstudentsdifferentthantheconstitutionalrightsofadults?
Materials
• DocumentaryofBoardofEducationv.EarlsVoicesofAmericanLawDVDavailableat
www.voicesofamericanlaw.org
• TelevisionandDVDplayer
• BoardofEducationv.EarlsViewerGuideandAnswers,attached
• VernoniaSchoolDistrictv.Acton,attached
• BoardofEducation,LindsayEarlsandJudgeProSeCourtTips,attached
1
• Teacher’sGuidetoMootCourtArguments
• Glossary(studentreferencedocument,ifneeded)
• BoardofEducationv.EarlsOpinion,edited,attached
Duration
2blockperiods
Procedure
DayOne
Warm-Up:NewRulesinSchool
1. Asawarm-up,tellstudentsthatyouhavesomenewsforthemandyou’dliketogleantheiropinions.(Try
tomaketheannouncementyoushareasbelievableaspossible).Explaintostudentsthatstartingnext
semesternewschoolboardpolicieswillgointoeffect.Thenewpoliciesincludethatstudentsmustdump
outthebelongingsoftheirbookbags,purses,pockets,etc.atleastonceadayduringrandomclassroom
raidsbytheadministration.Also,lockerdoorswillbereplacedwithclearplexiglassdoorssothatthe
principalcantellifthereareanyweaponsordrugsbeingkeptinside.Mostimportantly,therewillbe
randomdrugtestsforallstudentsparticipatinginextracurricularactivities.Allowstudentstoexpresstheir
opinionsopenlyonthesenewpolicies.Usethefollowingquestionstogagetheirfeelings:
• Howdoyoufeelaboutthenewschoolboardpolicies?Whydoyouthinkthesepoliciesarebeing
implemented?
• Ifyoufeelitisn’tfairtoforceeveryonetogiveuptheirprivacybecausesomestudentsbreaktherules,
whatalternativesdoyourecommendtoensureweareallsafe?
• Howmuchprivacydoyouexpecttohaveatschool?
• Doyounowhavemoreprivacyatschoolorhome?Doyouexpectmoreprivacyatschoolorathome?
Why?
Documentary:Educationv.Earls
2. Letstudentsknowthattherehavebeennosuchchangesinschoolboardpolicy,buttheyaregoingtobe
watchingadocumentaryaboutaSupremeCourtcaseinvolvingschooldrugtestingthatelicitedfeelings
suchasthosetheyjustfeltinthepeopleinvolved.Teachersshoulddeterminewhichoftheviewing
optionsbelowtheywilluse.Whileasynopsisofthecaseisprovidedforteacherreference,studentsneed
nofurtherintroductiontothefilm.
• TeacherReference-SynopsisoftheCase
InordertocombatincreasingdruguseamongTecumsehstudents,theschoolboarddecidedtoadopt
anewdrugtestingpolicy.Thepolicyrequiredthatallstudentsparticipatinginextracurricularactivities
bedrugtestedatthebeginningoftheyearandrandomlythroughouttheyear.LindsayEarls,a
sophomorewhoparticipatedinchoirandacademicteam,believedthepolicywasunconstitutionaland
refusedtosigntheconsentforms.WiththehelpofherparentsandtheACLU,Lindsaybroughtsuit
againsttheschoolboard.TheDistrictCourtheldthatthepolicywasconstitutional,soLindsay
appealed.The10thCircuitCourtofAppealsreversedtheDistrictCourt’sdecision,holdingthatthe
policywasunconstitutional.Ultimately,thecasewenttotheSupremeCourt,whichheldthatthe
policywasconstitutional.
• ViewingOptions
Thereareseveralwaysyoucanchoosetohavetheclassviewthedocumentary.
o Youmaychoosetohavetheclasswatchthevideowithnopausesandhavestudentsworkonthe
attachedViewer’sGuidewhilewatching
o SuggestedViewing:Youmaychoosetopausethevideoatthetimesoutlinedbelowandasktheclass
todiscussthequestionslisted.Studentsmaycompletethequestionsbelowinadditiontoorinstead
ofthequestionsontheViewer’sGuide.
2
§
§
§
DiscussionPoint#1/Activity:(Pauseat3:27).Tellthestudentsthattheywillbeparticipating
inamockschoolboardmeetingwheretheymustcreateaschooldrugtestingpolicy.Divide
studentsintogroupsoffive.Assigneachmemberofagrouponeofthefollowingroles:school
boardmember,teacher,studentathlete,parent,andsoccercoach.Then,intheirrespective
roles,havestudentsdiscuss(writethesequestionsontheboard):
• Whowillbetested?
• Whatdrugswillstudentsbetestedfor?
• Howwillstudentsbeselectedfordrugtesting?
• Howoftenwillstudentsbetested?
• Whatwilltheconsequencesbeforstudentswhotestpositivefordrugs?
• Aretherewaysotherthandrugtestingtocombataschool’sdrugproblem?
Afterstudentsaredonediscussingintheircharacter,theteachershouldallowtheclassto
debrief:Wasthatactivitydifficultandwhy?Wereyousurprisedbytheideassharedatthe
meetingandwhy?Whatwasyouropinion(incharacter)ofthepolicycreatedbyyourgroup?
Whatisyourpersonalopinion(notincharacter)ofthepolicy?
DiscussionPoint#2:(Pauseat5:56)Askthestudentstodiscusswhattheywoulddoifthey
wererequiredtosignaformconsentingtodrugtesting.Wouldtheysignit?Wouldtheytalkto
theirparents?Wouldtheychoosenottoparticipateintheextracurricularactivity?Ifthey
chosetogototheirparents,howmanystudentsthinktheirparentswoulddowhatDavidEarls
did?
DiscussionPoint#3:(Pauseat14:51)Askstudentshowinvasivetheyfeelthedrugtesting
policyis.Aretherewaysthattheprocedurescouldbelessinvasive?
You’reHired:CreateanAnti-DrugCampaign!
3. Oncethedocumentaryhasended,dividestudentsintosmallgroups(3-4students,dependingonthesize
oftheclass).Telltheclassthattheirschoolboardhasdecidedthatbeforeimplementingadrugtesting
policy,theywanttotryananti-drugcampaign.Tellthestudentsthattheyareemployeesatvarious
advertisingcompaniesandtheschoolboardhasaskedeachgrouptocomeupwithananti-drugcampaign.
Handoutandgoovertheattachedassignmentsheetthengiveeachgroup15-20minutestocomplete
theiradvertisement.Tellstudentsthatuponcompletion,theywill“pitch”theiradvertisingideatothe
schoolboard(theclass)bypresentingitandacceptinganyquestions.Theclasswillthenvoteonthemost
effectivecampaign.
Day2
MootCourt:Vernoniav.ActonandBoardofEducationv.Earls
4. Letstudentsknowthattheywillbeparticipatinginaprosecourt.Aprosecourtallowsstudentstoroleplayacourtcasewiththesmallestpossiblenumberofparticipantsandbasicrulesofevidence.Thecourtis
organizedasagroupofthreeparticipants:thejudge,whowillhearthetwosidesandmakethefinal
decision;thepetitioner,whobringsthesuitbeforethecourt;andtherespondentinwhichthesuitis
beingbroughtagainst.Prosecourtsgivestudentsasimplifiedlookatjudicialdecisionmakingwhile
presentinganopportunityforallstudentsinaclasstobeactivelyengagedintheprocess.
5. First,distributecopiesoftheattachedstudenthandoutreviewingthefactsofthecaseandtheopinionfor
Vernoniav.Acton,asimilarlandmarkSupremeCourtcase.Studentswillreadtheopinionindividuallyand
answertheGuidedReadingQuestions.
6. Next,assignrolesfortheProSeCourt.Havestudentscountofffrom1-6todividetheclassintosixequal
groups.Individualswhoare1’s&4’swillbejudges,2’s&5’swillbethepetitioner(whichinthiscaseisthe
BoardofEducation),3’s&6’swillbetherespondent(thelawyersforLindsayEarls).Instructstudentsto
meetintheirrespectivegroupstoprepareforthesimulation.Eachstudentwillbeactivelyinvolvedinthe
roleplay,sopreparationatthisstageiscriticaltosuccessfulparticipationinthesimulation.
3
7. Givestudentstheattachedtipsheetstoassisttheminpreparingforcourt.Thetwosetsofpetitionerand
therespondentgroupswillprepareanopeningstatementandargumentssupportingtheirpositionsonthe
issuesraisedinthecase.Meanwhile,thetwogroupsofjudgeswillreviewthecaseandpreparequestions
thattheywouldliketoaskofthepetitionerandrespondentduringthepresentationphaseoftheactivity.
Thesequestionsshouldbedesignedtoclarifypositionsontheissueswhichthejudgeswillbecalledupon
todecide.Teachersshouldtakesometimeduringthepreparationphasetomeetwiththejudgesand
reviewsomesimplerulesofprocedure,suchas:
• Thepetitionershouldpresentfirst,withoutinterruptionsfromthedefense.Therespondentpresents
hisorhercasesecond.
• Allowforbriefrebuttalsfromeachsideinthecase.
• Thejudgemayinterruptthepresentationsatanytimetoposequestionsdesignedtoclarifythe
argumentsbeingmade.(Source:Teacher'sGuide,WethePeopletheCitizenandtheConstitution)
8. Oncestudentshavesufficientlyprepared,arrangetheclassroom.Youwillhavemultiplecourtsinsession
simultaneously;therefore,arrangethedesksintheclassroomintogroupsofthree,oneforeachofthe
rolesintheactivity.Beforebeginningtheactivity,matchonejudge,onepetitioner,andonerespondent.
Teachersmaywanttohavethejudgesfirsttakeadeskineachofthegroupingsarrangedaroundthe
room.Thenaskonepetitionerandonerespondenttojointhegroup.Matchingrole-playersmaybemore
easilyaccomplishedbyprovidingroletagssostudentscanquicklyidentifywhoisajudge,petitioner,and
respondent.
Judge
Lindsay’s Lawyer
The Board’s Lawyer
9. Conductthecourthearingusingthefollowingprocedures:
• Instructthejudgesthatwheneachhasapetitionerandarespondentpresent,he/shemaybeginthe
courtsession.
• Thejudgeshouldfirsthearopeningstatementsbytheparticipants-firstthepetitionerandthenthe
respondent.Aonetotwo-minutetimelimitshouldbeimposedonthesestatements.
o Thepetitionermakesargumentsandisquestionedbythejudge.
o Therespondentpresentshis/herdefenseandisquestionedbythejudge.
• Thejudgeaskseachsideforbriefrebuttalstatements.
• Thejudgemakeshis/herdecisionandexplainsthereasoningwhichsupportsit.
10. Afterallcourtsarecomplete,debrieftheactivitywiththeclass.Askthejudgestosharetheirdecisions
andthereasoningsupportingit.Discussthestrengthsandweaknessesoftheargumentsandfacts
presentedinthecase.CounthowmanyjudgesdecidedinfavorofLindsayandhowmanydecidedinfavor
oftheSchoolBoard.
Court’sOpinion:BoardofEducationv.Earls
11. UsetheattachedBoardofEducationv.EarlsopiniontodiscusshowtheSupremeCourtactuallyruledin
theEarlscase(teacherscansummarizeandexplaintheopiniontostudents,orsupplyeachstudentwitha
copyofthehandouttoread):
• Doyouagreeordisagreewiththeholdingandwhy?
• TheSupremeCourthassaidthatminorshavelowerprivacyexpectationsthanadults.Doyou
agreewiththis?Whyorwhynot?
• Whatdoyouthinkwillhappeninthefuture…
o Doyouthinkthatmoreschoolswillimplementdrug-testingpolicieslikeTecumseh’s?
o DoyouthinktheSupremeCourtwouldapproveadrugtestingpolicythatrequired
testingofallstudentswhoattendaschool?Whyorwhynot?
4
o
DoyouthinktheSupremeCourtwouldapprovethetestingofstudentsforsubstances
suchastobacco,alcoholorAdderall?
AdditionalActivity
• InBoardofEducationv.Earls,theSupremeCourtheldthatrandomdrugtestingofstudentsparticipating
inextracurricularactivitieswasconstitutional.Incomingtothisdecision,themajorityexaminedthe
privacyexpectationsofstudentsandtheintrusivenessofthedrugtestingandtheschoolboard’sinterest.
ImagineyourlocalschoolboardhasdecidedtoimplementadrugtestingpolicysimilartotheoneinEarls.
Theonlydifferenceisthatratherthantestingonlythosestudentsparticipatinginextracurricularactivities,
theschoolboardwantstotestallstudents.Writealettertotheschoolboardvoicingyoursupportor
disapprovalofthepolicy.Youmayuseinformationfromthedocumentary,Vernonia,andEarlstosupport
yourposition.
Asyouwriteyourletter,rememberto:
o Organizeyourlettersothatyourideasprogresslogically.
o Includerelevantdetailsthatclearlydevelopyourletter.
o Edityourletterforstandardgrammarandlanguageusage.
Differentiation
StudentswithSpecialNeeds
• Ensurethatstudentsareplacedinmixedabilitygroups.
• StudentsmayhavemoredifficultywithVernoniav.Actonreading.Accessabriefdescriptionofthecase
andcourtopinionatwww.oyez.org.Entercasenameinthesearchbarinthetoprighthand.
• StudentsthatmayhavedifficultyparticipatinginMootCourtcanbeassignedasnewsreporters.Theywill
listentoargumentsofoneormoregroupsandwriteanewscastdescribingthefactsofthecase,the
argumentsthatwerepresented,andthedecisionofthejudge.
AIG
• HavestudentsreviewtheSchoolBoardhandbookanddiscussissuestheyfindtoberelatedto
constitutionalrights.Discusswhytheschoolboardpolicieswerepassed.
5
Name:________________________________
BoardofEducationv.EarlsViewer’sGuide
1.InVernonia,whatstudentsweretestedandwhy?
2.UnderTecumseh’spolicy,whathappenedthefirsttimeastudenttestedpositivefordrugs?
3.WhatextracurricularactivitydoesLindsaysaysheisinvolvedin?
4.WhodidDavidEarlscontactforlegalassistance?
5.WhoisGrahamBoyd?
6.WhydidtheACLUlikethe10thCircuit?
7.WholostattheDistrictCourt?
8.WhatdidJudgeEbelthinkwasLindsay’smostcompellingargumentinfrontofthe10thCircuit?
9.WhataresomeofLindsay’sargumentsthattheoutcomeofthiscaseshouldbedifferentfromtheoutcome
ofVernonia?
10.WhataresomeoftheSchoolBoard’sargumentsthattheoutcomeofthiscaseshouldbethesameasthe
outcomeofVernonia?
6
BoardofEducationv.EarlsViewer’sGuide-ANSWERKEY
1.InVernonia,whatstudentsweretestedandwhy?
AthletesweretestedinVernoniabecausetheyweretheleadersofthedrugcultureandtherewasariskthat
theywouldbehurtwhileparticipatinginsports.
2.UnderTecumseh’spolicy,whathappenedthefirsttimeastudenttestedpositivefordrugs?
Thefirsttimeastudenttestedpositive,heorshewouldreceivecounseling.
3.WhatextracurricularactivitydoesLindsaysaysheisinvolvedin?
Lindsaysaysshewasinvolvedinchoir.
4.WhodidDavidEarlscontactforlegalassistance?
DavidEarlscontactedlocalattorneyswhowerenotinterestedinthecase.HealsocontactedtheACLUwho
chosetotakethecase
5.WhoisGrahamBoyd?
GrahamBoydisLindsay’sattorney.HeisthedirectoroftheACLU’sprogramthatchallengesdrug-relatedlaws.
6.WhydidtheACLUlikethe10thCircuit?
TheACLUlikedthe10thCircuitbecausetheCourthadalreadydecidedaFourthAmendmentcaseagainstthe
governmentandbecausethe10thcircuithasareputationforbeingveryliberal.
7.WholostattheDistrictCourt?
Lindsay.
8.WhatdidJudgeEbelthinkwasLindsay’smostcompellingargumentinfrontofthe10thCircuit?
JudgeEbelsaidthatLindsay’sstrongestargumentwasthatifastudentisusingdrugs,thebestwaytogetthem
tostopistokeepthembusyinschool.
9.WhataresomeofLindsay’sargumentsthattheoutcomeofthiscaseshouldbedifferentfromtheoutcome
ofVernonia?
Vernoniashouldbelimitedtoathletes.ThereisnotadrugproblematTecumsehliketherewasatVernonia.
TheinvasionofprivacyhereismuchgreaterthanitwasinVernonia,becauseathleteshavealowerexpectation
ofprivacy
10.WhataresomeoftheSchoolBoardsargumentsthattheoutcomeofthiscaseshouldbethesameasthe
outcomeofVernonia?
Vernoniaisnotonlylimitedtoathletes,itcanapplytoanypolicywheretheschoolhasaspecialneed.The
invasionofprivacyhereisminimalbecauseurinesamplesarecommonandtheprocedureusedwasnotany
moreinvasivethanusingapublicrestroom.
7
Anti-DrugCampaignAssignment
Welcometothe_________________AdvertisingAgency!Asadvertisingspecialists,yourgroup’sjobisto
designanAnti-DrugCampaignforyourschooldistrict.Buttherearemanyotherfirmsthatwouldloveto
wintheprojectaswell.Yourresponsibilityistopresentacreativeandeffectivecampaignproposaltothe
SchoolBoardmemberstowinthejob.
Responsibilities:
ü DevelopacampaigntopitchtotheSchoolBoard.Remember,theaudienceforyourcampaignis
highschoolstudents.Yourcampaignshouldincludeatleasttwoofthefollowingcomponents:
o Avisualaid(posters,billboards,etc.)
o Anannouncementtobeplayedovertheintercomorlocalradiostation
o Asongorraptobeplayedovertheintercomorlocalradiostation
o Askittobepresentedataschoolassembly
o AcommercialtobeairedonthelocalTVstationduringclass
ü Yourcampaignmustincludeanoverallmotto(catchyslogan)
ü Planasalespitchaboutwhyyourcampaignwillreducedruguseintheschooldistricttosharewith
theSchoolBoardmembers.
Whenfinished,youwillpresentyoursalespitch(anintroductiontoyourcampaigninwhichyoushareyour
motto/slogan,aswellaswhyyourcampaignwillbeeffectiveinreducingdruguse);followedbythe
presentationofyouractualcampaign(youwillactoutyourskitorcommercial,performyoursongorrap,show
yourvisualaid,etc.)
Attheendofclass,eachofyouwillassumetheroleofaschoolboardmemberandvoteonwhichadvertising
firmyouwanttohire.
8
ComparingVernoniaSchoolDistrictv.ActontoEarlsv.BoardofEd.
FactsoftheEarlsCase:TheStudentActivitiesDrugTestingPolicyadoptedbytheTecumseh,OklahomaSchool
District(SchoolDistrict)requiresallmiddleandhighschoolstudentstoconsenttourinalysistestingfordrugs
inordertoparticipateinanyextracurricularactivity.TwoTecumsehHighSchoolstudentsandtheirparents
broughtsuit,allegingthatthepolicyviolatestheFourthAmendment.TheDistrictCourtgrantedtheSchool
Districtsummaryjudgment.Inreversing,theCourtofAppealsheldthatthepolicyviolatedtheFourth
Amendment.Theappellatecourtconcludedthatbeforeimposingasuspicionlessdrug-testingprograma
schoolmustdemonstratesomeidentifiabledrugabuseproblemamongasufficientnumberofthosetested,
suchthattestingthatgroupwillactuallyredressitsdrugproblem,whichtheSchoolDistricthadfailedto
demonstrate.
ConstitutionalQuestion:IstheStudentActivitiesDrugTestingPolicy,whichrequiresallstudentswho
participateincompetitiveextracurricularactivitiestosubmittodrugtesting,consistentwiththeFourth
Amendment?
VERNONIASCHOOLDISTRICTv.ACTON
515U.S.646(1995)
Duringthelate1980s,schoolsinthecommunityofVernoniaOregonwereexperiencingasharp
increaseindruguseanddisciplinaryproblemsamongstudents.Theschooldistrictwasparticularlyconcerned
thatstudentathletes,theleadersofthedrugculture,mightsuffersports-relatedinjuries.TheDistrict
respondedbyimplementinganewpolicy,whichrequiredthatallstudentswishingtoplayasportsignaform
consentingtothetesting.Athletesweretestedatthebeginningoftheseasonandathletesweredrawnweekly
fromapoolforrandomtesting.In1991,JamesActonwasdeniedparticipationinfootballafterherefusedto
consenttotesting.TheActonsfiledsuit,whichwassubsequentlydismissedbytheDistrictCourt.TheUnited
StatesCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitreversed,holdingthatthepolicywasunconstitutional.
JusticeSCALIAdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt
TheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionprovidesthattheFederalGovernmentshall
notviolate“therightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons...againstunreasonablesearchesand
seizure”Whetheraparticularsearchmeetsthereasonablenessstandard“isjudgedbybalancingitsintrusion
ontheindividual’sFourthAmendmentinterestsagainstitspromotionoflegitimategovernmentalinterests.”
Thefirstfactortobeconsideredisthenatureoftheprivacyinterestuponwhichthesearchatissue
intrudes.Minorslacksomeofthemostfundamentalrightsofself-determination;theyaresubjecttothe
controloftheirparentsorguardians.Fortheirowngood,publicschoolchildrenareroutinelyrequiredto
submittovariousphysicalexaminations,andtobevaccinatedagainstvariousdiseases.Therefore,“students
withintheschoolenvironmenthavealesserexpectationofprivacythanmembersofthepopulation
generally.”Privacyexpectationsareevenlesswithregardtostudentathletes.Schoolsportsarenotforthe
bashful,andlockerroomsarenotnotablefortheprivacytheyafford.
Weturnnexttothecharacteroftheintrusionthatiscomplainedof.UndertheDistrict’sPolicymale
studentsproducesamplesataurinalalongawall.Femalestudentsproducesamplesinanenclosedstall,with
afemalemonitorstandingoutside.Theseconditionsarenearlyidenticaltothosetypicallyencounteredin
publicrestrooms.Undersuchconditions,theprivacyinterestscompromisedareinourviewnegligible.
Accordingly,wereachtheconclusionthattheinvasionofprivacywasnotsignificant.
Finally,weturntoconsiderthenatureandimmediacyofthegovernmentalconcernatissuehere.The
District“mustdemonstratea‘compellingneed’fortheprogram.”Thephrasedescribesaninterestthat
appearsimportantenoughtojustifytheparticularsearchathand,inlightofotherfactorsthatshowthesearch
toberelativelyintrusiveuponagenuineexpectationofprivacy.Whetherthatrelativelyhighdegreeof
governmentconcernisnecessaryinthiscaseornot,wethinkitismet.
Schoolyearsarethetimewhenthephysical,psychologicalandaddictiveeffectsofdrugsaremost
severe.Andofcoursetheeffectsofadrug-infestedschoolarevisitednotjustupontheusers,butuponthe
entirestudentbodyandfaculty,astheeducationalprocessisdisrupted.Finally,itmustnotbelostsightofthat
9
thisprogramisdirectedmorenarrowlytodrugusebyschoolathletes,wheretheriskofimmediatephysical
harmtothedruguserorthosewithwhomheisplayinghissportareparticularlyhigh.
Respondentsarguethata“lessintrusivemeanstothesameend”wasavailable,namely,“drugtesting
onsuspicionofdruguse.”Itmaybeimpracticable,foronething,simplybecausetheparentswhoarewillingto
acceptrandomdrugtestingofathletearenotwillingtoacceptaccusatorydrugtestingforallstudents,which
transformstheprocessintoabadgeofshame.Respondents’proposalbringstheriskthatteacherswillimpose
testingarbitrarilyupontroublesomebutnotdrug-likelystudents.
Takingintoaccountallthefactorswehaveconsideredabove...weconcludeVernonia’sPolicyis
reasonableandhenceconstitutional.Wethereforevacatethejudgment,andremandthecasetotheCourtof
Appealsforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.
JusticeGINSBURG,concurring.
TheCourtconstantlyobservesthattheSchoolDistrict’sdrug-testingpolicyappliesonlytostudents
whovoluntarilyparticipateininterscholasticathletics.IcomprehendtheCourt’sopinionasreservingthe
questionwhethertheDistrict,onnomorethantheshowingmadehere,constitutionallycouldimposeroutine
drugtestingnotonlyonthoseseekingtoengagewithothersinteamsports,butonallstudentsrequiredto
attendschool.
JusticeO’CONNOR,withwhomJusticeSTEVENSandJusticeSOUTERjoin,dissenting.
ThepopulationofourNation’spublicschools,grades7through12,numbersaround18million.Bythe
reasoningoftoday’sdecision,themillionsofthesestudentswhoparticipateininterscholasticsports,an
overwhelmingmajorityofwhomhavegivenschoolofficialsnoreasontosuspecttheyusedrugsatschool,are
opentoanintrusivebodilysearch.
IhaveseriousdoubtswhethertheCourtisrightthattheDistrictreasonablyfoundthatthelesser
intrusionofasuspicion-basedtestingprogramoutweigheditsgenuineconcernsfortheadversarialnatureof
suchaprogram,andforitsabuses.Thefearthatasuspicion-basedregimewillleadtothetestingof
“troublesomebutnotdrug-likely”students,forexample,ignoresthattherequiredlevelofsuspicioninthe
schoolcontextisobjectivelyreasonablesuspicion.Inadditiontooverstatingitsconcernswithasuspicionbasedprogram,theDistrictseemstohaveunderstatedtheextenttowhichsuchaprogramislessintrusiveof
students’privacy.Byinvadingtheprivacyofafewstudentsratherthanmany(nationwide,ofthousands
ratherthanmillions),andbygivingpotentialsearchtargetssubstantialcontroloverwhethertheywill,infact,
besearched,asuspicion-basedschemeissignificantlylessintrusive.
ThegreatironyofthiscaseisthatmostoftheevidencetheDistrictintroducedtojustifyits
suspicionlessdrugtestingprogramconsistedoffirst-orsecond-handstoriesofparticularidentifiablestudents
actinginwaysthatplainlygaverisetoreasonablesuspicionofin-schooldruguse-andthusthatwouldhave
justifiedadrug-relatedsearch.Inlightofalltheevidenceofdrugusebyparticularstudents,thereisa
substantialbasisforconcludingthatavigorousregimeofsuspicion-basedtesting(forwhichtheDistrict
appearsalreadytohaverulesinplace)wouldhavegonealongwaytowardsolvingVernonia’sschooldrug
problemwhilepreservingtheFourthAmendmentrightsofJamesActonandotherslikehim.
IfindunpersuasivetheCourt’sreliance,onthewidespreadpracticeofphysicalexaminationsand
vaccinations.Itisworthnotingthatasuspicionrequirementforvaccinationsisnotmerelyimpractical;itis
nonsensical,forvaccinationsarenotsearchesforanythinginparticularandsothereisnothingaboutwhichto
besuspicious.Asforphysicalexaminations,thepracticabilityofasuspicionrequirementishighlydoubtful
becausetheconditionsforwhichthesephysicalexamsordinarilysearch,suchaslatentheartconditions,do
notmanifestthemselvesinobservablebehaviorthewayschooldrugusedoes.Itmightalsobenotedthat
physicalexams(andofcoursevaccinations)arenotsearchesforconditionsthatreflectwrongdoingonthepart
ofthestudent,andsoarewhollynonaccusatoryandhavenoconsequencesthatcanberegardedaspunitive.
Itcannotbetoooftenstatedthatthegreatestthreatstoourconstitutionalfreedomscomeintimesof
crisis.Butwemustalsostaymindfulthatnotallgovernmentresponsestosuchtimesarehysterical
overreactions;somecrisesarequitereal,andwhentheyare,theyservepreciselyasthecompellingstate
interestthatwehavesaidmayjustifyameasuredintrusiononconstitutionalrights.Theonlywayforjudgesto
mediatetheseconflictingimpulsesistodowhattheyshoulddoanyway:stayclosetotherecordineachcase
thatappearsbeforethem,andmaketheirjudgmentsbasedonthatalone.Icannotavoidtheconclusionthat
10
theDistrict’ssuspicionlesspolicysweepstoobroadly,andtooimprecisely,tobereasonableundertheFourth
Amendment.
[NOTE:Thisopinionhasbeeneditedforusebystudentsandteachers.Foreaseofreading,noindicationhas
beenmadeofdeletedmaterialandcasecitations.Anylegalorscholarlyuseofthiscaseshouldrefertothefull
opinion.]
11
Name:________________________________
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
VERNONIASCHOOLDISTRICTv.ACTONGuidedReadingQuestions
HowwastheVernoniaschooldistrictpolicysimilartotheTecumseh,OklahomaSchoolDistrictpolicy?
HowwastheVernoniaschooldistrictpolicydifferentfromtheTecumseh,OklahomaSchoolDistrictpolicy?
HowdidtheDistrictcourtrespondtothesuitfiledbytheActons?
HowdidtheAppealscourtrespondtotheactionsoftheDistrictCourt?HowdidthejudgesintheAppeals
courtruleontheVernoniaschoolboardpolicy?
WhatamendmentdoesJusticeScaliarefertointhemajorityopinion?
DoesJusticeScaliafindtheprocessofadministeringthedrugtesttostudentstobeoverlyintrusivetothe
students’privacy?
7. DoesJusticeScaliafindadrugproblemataschooltobeanimportantissue?
8. HowdoesJusticeScaliarespondtocriticsthatwanta“lessintrusivemeanstothesameend”fordrug
testingpolicy”?
9. WhydoesJusticeO’Connorsupporta“suspicion-based”drugtestpolicy?
10. Inyouropinion,whomakesamoresupported,logicalargument:JusticeScaliaorJusticeO’Connor?
Explain.
12
VERNONIASCHOOLDISTRICTv.ACTONGuidedReadingQuestions-ANSWERKEY
1. HowwastheVernoniaschooldistrictpolicysimilartotheTecumseh,OklahomaSchoolDistrictpolicy?
DrugtestsforathletesintheVernoniaSchoolDistrictwithoutindividualsuspicionofdruguse.
2. HowwastheVernoniaschooldistrictpolicydifferentfromtheTecumseh,OklahomaSchoolDistrict
policy?
Policyonlyregardedstudentsthatplayedsportstosignaformstatingtheirwillingnesstotakeadrug
test,unliketheTecumsehpolicyforallstudentsinvolvedinextracurricularactivities.
3. HowdidtheDistrictcourtrespondtothesuitfiledbytheActons?
TheDistrictcourtdismissedthecase.
4. HowdidtheAppealscourtrespondtotheactionsoftheDistrictCourt?Howdidthejudgesinthe
AppealscourtruleontheVernoniaschoolboardpolicy?
TheAppealsCourtruledthattheschoolboardpolicywasunconstitutional.
5. WhatamendmentdoesJusticeScaliarefertointhemajorityopinion?
4thAmendment-ProtectionofPrivacy
6. DoesJusticeScaliafindtheprocessofadministeringthedrugtesttostudentstobeoverlyintrusiveto
thestudents’privacy?Explain.
No.Scaliaarguesitisnomoreinvasivethanusualbathroomprocess.
7. DoesJusticeScaliafindadrugproblemataschooltobeanimportantissue?
Yes.Scaliaarguesthatitaffectsotherstudentsandfaculty.
8. HowdoesJusticeScaliarespondtocriticsthatwanta“lessintrusivemeanstothesameend”fordrug
testingpolicy”?
Scaliastates“theparentswhoarewillingtoacceptrandomdrugtestingofathletearenotwillingto
acceptaccusatorydrugtestingforallstudents,whichtransformstheprocessintoabadgeofshame.”
9. WhydoesJusticeO’Connorsupporta“suspicion-based”drugtestpolicy?
Drugtestingstudentsthatteachersandadministratorssuspectareusingdrugswouldhavealarger
effectonsolvingthedrugproblemratherthantestingstudentsthatareunlikelytobeusingdrugs.
10. Inyouropinion,whomakesamoresupported,logicalargument:JusticeScaliaorJusticeO’Connor?
Explainusingsupportingdetailsfromthetext.
Answerswillvary.
13
MootCourtTips:
TheSchoolBoard
Overview
1.Yourjob,asthelawyerforthepetitioner,istoconvincethejudgethattheBoard’sdrug-testingpolicyis
constitutionalandsotheCourtofAppeal’sholdingshouldbeoverruled.Asthepetitioner,youwillhavea
chancetomakearebuttalaftertherespondentmakeshisorherargument,somakesuretopayattentionto
theargumentsheorshemakessoyoucaneffectivelyrespondtothem.
2.Foryouropeningstatement,explainthattheCourtofAppeal’sdecisionwasincorrectandbrieflyexplain
why.Then,concludeyouropeningbyexplainingthatforthesereasons,thelowercourt’sdecisionshouldbe
reversed.
3.Makesureyourpresentationincludesargumentsandfactsfromthedocumentarythatwillhelpyou
persuadethejudgethatthedrug-testingpolicyisconstitutional.
FormulatingYourArgument
Inordertohelpyoucomeupwithyourstrongestarguments,answerthesekeyquestions:
Ø HowisthiscasesimilartoVernonia,wheretheSupremeCourtheldthattestingstudentathleteswas
constitutional?
Ø WhatdifficultieswouldtheSchoolBoardfaceiftheycouldonlyadministerdrugtestswhentherewas
reasonablesuspicionaboutastudent’sdruguse?
Ø Dostudentshavethesameexpectationsofprivacyasnon-students?Why?
Ø Dominorshavethesameexpectationsofprivacyasadults?Why?
Ø Howintrusiveisadrugtest?Isitmoreintrusivethanreceivingaschool-requiredphysicalor
immunization?Whynot?
Ø WhatistheGovernment/SchoolBoard’sconcernandhowimportantisit?Dorandomdrugtestsmeet
theseconcerns?
14
MootCourtTips:
LindsayEarls
Overview
1.Yourjob,asthelawyerfortherespondent,istoconvincethejudgethattheBoard’sdrug-testingpolicyis
unconstitutionalandsotheCourtofAppeals’decisionshouldbeupheld.Astherespondent,youwillnothave
achancetomakearebuttal,somakesuretopayattentiontothepetitioner’sargumentssoyoucaneffectively
respondtothemwhenitisyourturntopresent.
2.Foryouropeningstatement,explainthattheCourtofAppeal’sdecisionwascorrectandbrieflyexplainwhy.
Then,concludeyouropeningbyexplainingthatforthesereasons,thelowercourt’sdecisionshouldbeupheld.
3.Makesureyourpresentationincludesargumentsandfactsfromthedocumentarythatwillhelpyou
persuadethejudgethatthedrug-testingpolicyisunconstitutional.
FormulatingYourArgument
Inordertohelpyoucomeupwithyourstrongestarguments,answerthesekeyquestions:
Ø HowisthiscasedifferentfromVernonia,wheretheSupremeCourtheldthattestingstudentathletes
wasconstitutional?Whymightathletesneedtobetested,butnotchoirmembers?
Ø Whywouldn’titbeaproblemfortheSchoolBoardtoadministerdrugtestsonlywhentherewas
reasonablesuspicionaboutastudent’sdruguse?
Ø Dostudentshavethesameexpectationsofprivacyasnon-students?Why?
Ø Dominorshavethesameexpectationsofprivacyasadults?Why?
Ø Howintrusiveisadrugtest?Isitmoreintrusivethanreceivingaschool-requiredphysicalor
immunization?Why?
Ø WhatistheGovernment/SchoolBoard’sconcernandhowimportantisit?Dorandomdrugtestsmeet
theseconcerns?
15
MootCourtTips:
Judge
Overview
1.Yourjobasthejudgeistoevaluatebothsides’argumentsanddecidehowyouaregoingtorule.Inorderto
makethebestdecisionyoucan,itisimportanttoaskbothsidesclarifyingquestions.
2.Firstyouwillaskthepetitionertostepforwardandgivehisorherarguments.Whilethepetitioneris
speaking,youmayinterruptatanytimetoaskquestions.Whenthepetitionerisfinished,tellhimorhertobe
seatedandcallforwardtherespondent.Again,youmayinterrupthimorheratanytimetoaskquestions.
Finally,oncetherespondentisfinished,callforwardthepetitionerforhisorherrebuttal.
3.Oncethepetitionerisdone,takeafewminutestogooveryournotesandmakeyourdecision.Whenyou
aredone,tellthepetitionerandrespondentwhatyouhavedecidedandwhy.
FormulatingQuestions
Inpreparationforcourt,youwillwanttothinkabouttheargumentsthateachsidewillmake.Forexample,
LindsayEarls’Lawyermayarguethathavingsomeonelisteningtoyouwhileyouurinateisagreatinvasionof
privacy,soyoumaywanttoask,“Howisthisanydifferentthanusingapublicrestroom?”
Inordertocomeupwiththebestquestionstoask,answerthefollowingquestions:
Ø Whatisthepetitioner’sbestargument?Asktherespondentaboutthis.
Ø Whatistherespondent’sbestargument?Askthepetitioneraboutthis.
Ø Isthereadrugproblemattheschool?
Ø Whatprivacyexpectationdostudentshavewhileinschool?
Ø HowisthesituationinTecumsehsimilarto,ordifferentfrom,thesituationinVernonia?
Ø Doathleteshaveadifferentexpectationofprivacythannon-athletes?
16
TEACHER’SGUIDE:MOOTCOURTARGUMENTS
Asstudentsworktogethertodevelopargumentsfortheirside,walkaroundtheclassroomandoffer
assistance.Youmaychoosetogiveeachsidesomeexamplesofstrongargumentsoryoumayusethisguideas
atooltoaskstudentsquestionsthatwillguidethemtothearguments.
WhataretheBestArgumentsforEachSide?
BestArgumentsforthePetitioner(TheSchoolBoard):
• ThesituationinTecumsehisnotverydifferentfromthesituationinVernonia.Schooladministrators
shouldnothavetowaituntiladrugproblembecomesanepidemic;anydruguseinschooliscausefor
concernandshouldbedealtwithinadministrator’sbestjudgment.
• ExpandingdrugtestingtoextracurricularactivitiesisonlyaverysmallexpansionoftheVernoniacase.
Studentsinextracurricularactivitiesareofteninsituationsthatcouldbedangerousifthestudentis
intoxicated,andareofteninsituationssuchastravelingorchanginguniformsinwhichtheyhavea
lesserexpectationofprivacy.
• Thedrugtestingproceduresarenotparticularlyinvasiveofstudents’privacy,particularlygivenhow
commondrugtestingisinadultemployment.
BestArgumentsfortheRespondent(LindsayEarls)
• ThesituationinTecumsehisentirelydifferentfromthesituationintheVernoniacase.Thereisnodrug
“epidemic,”nostateofrebellioninschools,andwhateverdrugusetheremightbewasnotconfinedto
anidentifiablegroup,likeathletes.
• Studentsinextracurricularactivitiesdonothavethesameexposuretodangerandlesserexpectation
ofprivacyasathletes.
• Havingstudentstakenfromclasstoprovideurinesamplesunderteachers’supervisionisanunjustified
invasionofthestudents’privacy.
• Theschoolboard’sdrugtestingprogramislikelytobecounterproductive,asoneofthebestwaysto
preventstudentsfromusingdrugsistokeeptheminvolvedinextracurricularactivities.
17
Glossary
ACLU:TheAmericanCivilLibertiesUnionuseslitigation,legislationandcommunityeducationtodefendand
preservetheindividualrightsandlibertiesthatareguaranteedbytheU.S.Constitution.TheACLUoften
provideslegalassistanceincaseswherecivillibertiesmaybeatrisk.
CivilRights:TherightsgiventothepeoplebytheUnitedStatesConstitution,suchasfreedomofspeech,
freedomofreligionandtherighttoprivacy.
TheFourthAmendment:TheFourthAmendmentstatesthat:“Therightofthepeopletobesecureintheir
persons,houses,papers,andeffects,againstunreasonablesearchesandseizures,shallnotbeviolated....”
Vernonia:VernoniaSchoolDistrictv.ActonwasdecidedbytheSupremeCourtin1995.TheCourtheldthat
suspicionlessdrug-testingofstudentathleteswasconstitutional.
SpecialNeedsDoctrine:TheSupremeCourthasheldthatasearchwithoutprobablecausemaybe
constitutionalwhenspecialneedsmakethewarrantandprobable-causerequirementimpracticable.
ProbableCause:Apoliceofficerhasprobablecausetoarrestsomeoneifheorshereasonablybelievesacrime
hasbeencommittedandthatthepersontobearrestedcommittedthecrime.Apoliceofficerhasprobable
causeforasearchifheorshereasonablybelievesthataspecificitemrelatedtoacrimewillbefoundinthe
placetobesearched.
Warrant:Anordersignedbyajudgethatallowsanofficialtosearchsomeone’sproperty.
Search:Whenpoliceenteranareawhichapersonreasonablyexpectstobeprivate(suchasahome)looking
forevidence,itislegallyconsideredasearch.Whenpolicelistentoprivatetelephoneconversations,suchas
withawiretap,itisalsoconsideredasearch.Sometimespolicemaydothingsoutsideahome,suchasuse
heat-sensingequipmenttodetectthepresenceofheatlamps,thatarestillconsideredsearches.Thepolice
cansearchaperson’spropertyifitisnotinaprivateplace(forexample,garbagebagsleftoutatthestreet)or
ifthatpersondoesnotdemonstratethatheorsheexpectsittobeprivate(telephoneconversationsthat
otherscanhear).
18
BoardofEducationv.EarlsOpinion
536U.S.822,122S.Ct.2559(2002)
JusticeTHOMASdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.
The city of Tecumseh, Oklahoma, is a rural community located approximately 40 miles southeast of
OklahomaCity.TheSchoolDistrictadministersallTecumsehpublicschools.Inthefallof1998,theSchoolDistrict
adoptedtheStudentActivitiesDrugTestingPolicy(Policy),whichrequiresallmiddleandhighschoolstudents
toconsenttodrugtestinginordertoparticipateinanyextracurricularactivity.Inpractice,thePolicyhasbeen
appliedonlytocompetitiveextracurricularactivitiessanctionedbytheOklahomaSecondarySchoolsActivities
Association,suchastheAcademicTeam,FutureFarmersofAmerica,FutureHomemakersofAmerica,band,
choir,pompon,cheerleading,andathletics.UnderthePolicy,studentsarerequiredtotakeadrugtestbefore
participatinginanextracurricularactivity,mustsubmittorandomdrugtestingwhileparticipatinginthatactivity,
andmustagreetobetestedatanytimeuponreasonablesuspicion.Theurinalysistestsaredesignedtodetect
onlytheuseofillegaldrugs,includingamphetamines,marijuana,cocaine,opiates,andbarbiturates,notmedical
conditionsorthepresenceofauthorizedprescriptionmedications.
Atthetimeoftheirsuit,bothrespondentsattendedTecumsehHighSchool.RespondentLindsayEarls
was a member of the show choir, the marching band, the Academic Team, and the National Honor Society.
RespondentDanielJamessoughttoparticipateintheAcademicTeam.
[BothEarlsandJamesfiledsuitagainsttheSchoolDistrictunder42U.S.C.§1983allegingthatthepolicy
violatedtheirFourthAmendmentrights.Oncross-motionforsummaryjudgment,theDistrictCourtupheldthe
policyfindingthattherewasahistoryofdrugabuseattheschoolthatpresented“legitimatecauseforconcern”
evenifnotanepidemic.The10thCircuitCourtofAppealsreversedfindinginsufficientproofofaseriousdrug
problemthatwouldjustifythepolicy.TheSupremeCourtgrantedcertiorari.]
TheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionprotects“therightofthepeopletobesecure
intheirpersons,houses,papers,andeffects,againstunreasonablesearchesandseizures.”Searchesbypublic
school officials, such as the collection of urine samples, implicate Fourth Amendment interests. We must
therefore review the School District’s Policy for “reasonableness,” which is the touchstone of the
constitutionalityofagovernmentalsearch.
Inthecriminalcontext,reasonablenessusuallyrequiresashowingofprobablecause.Giventhatthe
SchoolDistrict’sPolicyisnotinanywayrelatedtotheconductofcriminalinvestigations,respondentsdonot
contend that the School District requires probable cause before testing students for drug use. Respondents
insteadarguethatdrugtestingmustbebasedatleastonsomelevelofindividualizedsuspicion.Itistruethat
we generally determine the reasonableness of a search by balancing the nature of the intrusion on the
individual’sprivacyagainstthepromotionoflegitimategovernmentalinterests.
Significantly, this Court has previously held that “special needs” inhere in the public school context.
While schoolchildren do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse, “Fourth
Amendment rights ... are different in public schools than elsewhere; the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry cannot
disregard the schools’ custodial and tutelary responsibility for children.” Vernonia. In particular, a finding of
individualizedsuspicionmaynotbenecessarywhenaschoolconductsdrugtesting.
InVernonia,thisCourtheldthatthesuspicionlessdrugtestingofathleteswasconstitutional.TheCourt,
however,didnotsimplyauthorizeallschooldrugtesting,butratherconductedafact-specificbalancingofthe
intrusion on the children’s Fourth Amendment rights against the promotion of legitimate governmental
interests. Applying the principles of Vernonia to the somewhat different facts of this case, we conclude that
Tecumseh’sPolicyisalsoconstitutional.
Wefirstconsiderthenatureoftheprivacyinterestallegedlycompromisedbythedrugtesting.Asin
Vernonia,thecontextofthepublicschoolenvironmentservesasthebackdropfortheanalysisoftheprivacy
interestatstakeandthereasonablenessofthedrugtestingpolicyingeneral.
Astudent’sprivacyinterestislimitedinapublicschoolenvironmentwheretheStateisresponsiblefor
maintaining discipline, health, and safety. Schoolchildren are routinely required to submit to physical
19
examinationsandvaccinationsagainstdisease.Securingorderintheschoolenvironmentsometimesrequires
thatstudentsbesubjectedtogreatercontrolsthanthoseappropriateforadults.
Respondentsarguethatbecausechildrenparticipatinginnonathleticextracurricularactivitiesarenot
subjecttoregularphysicalsandcommunalundress,theyhaveastrongerexpectationofprivacythantheathletes
testedinVernonia.Thisdistinction,however,wasnotessentialtoourdecisioninVernonia,whichdepended
primarilyupontheschool’scustodialresponsibilityandauthority.
In any event, students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities voluntarily subject
themselvestomanyofthesameintrusionsontheirprivacyasdoathletes.Someoftheseclubsandactivities
requireoccasionaloff-campustravelandcommunalundress.Allofthemhavetheirownrulesandrequirements
forparticipatingstudentsthatdonotapplytothestudentbodyasawhole.Wethereforeconcludethatthe
studentsaffectedbythisPolicyhavealimitedexpectationofprivacy.
Next, we consider the character of the intrusion imposed by the Policy. Urination is “an excretory
function traditionally shielded by great privacy.” But the “degree of intrusion” on one’s privacy caused by
collectingaurinesample“dependsuponthemannerinwhichproductionoftheurinesampleismonitored.”
Vernonia.
UnderthePolicy,afacultymonitorwaitsoutsidetheclosedrestroomstallforthestudenttoproducea
sampleandmust“listenforthenormalsoundsofurinationinordertoguardagainsttamperedspecimensand
toinsureanaccuratechainofcustody.”Themonitorthenpoursthesampleintotwobottlesthataresealedand
placedintoamailingpouchalongwithaconsentformsignedbythestudent.Thisprocedureisvirtuallyidentical
tothatreviewedinVernonia,exceptthatitadditionallyprotectsprivacybyallowingmalestudentstoproduce
theirsamplesbehindaclosedstall.GiventhatweconsideredthemethodofcollectioninVernoniaa“negligible”
intrusion,themethodhereisevenlessproblematic.
Inaddition,thePolicyclearlyrequiresthatthetestresultsbekeptinconfidentialfilesseparatefroma
student’sothereducationalrecordsandreleasedtoschoolpersonnelonlyona“needtoknow”basis.Moreover,
thetestresultsarenotturnedovertoanylawenforcementauthority.Nordothetestresultshereleadtothe
impositionofdisciplineorhaveanyacademicconsequences.Rather,theonlyconsequenceofafaileddrugtest
istolimitthestudent’sprivilegeofparticipatinginextracurricularactivities.Giventheminimallyintrusivenature
ofthesamplecollectionandthelimitedusestowhichthetestresultsareput,weconcludethattheinvasionof
students’privacyisnotsignificant.
Finally, this Court must consider the nature and immediacy of the government’s concerns and the
efficacy of the Policy in meeting them. This Court has already articulated in detail the importance of the
governmentalconcerninpreventingdrugusebyschoolchildren.ThedrugabuseproblemamongourNation’s
youthhashardlyabatedsinceVernoniawasdecidedin1995.Infact,evidencesuggeststhatithasonlygrown
worse.Indeed,thenationwidedrugepidemicmakesthewaragainstdrugsapressingconcernineveryschool.
Additionally,theSchoolDistrictinthiscasehaspresentedspecificevidenceofdruguseatTecumseh
schools.Teacherstestifiedthattheyhadseenstudentswhoappearedtobeundertheinfluenceofdrugsand
that they heard students speaking openly about using drugs. We decline to second-guess the finding of the
DistrictCourtthat“[v]iewingtheevidenceasawhole,itcannotbereasonablydisputedthatthe[SchoolDistrict]
wasfacedwitha‘drugproblem’whenitadoptedthePolicy.”
Furthermore,thisCourthasnotrequiredaparticularizedorpervasivedrugproblembeforeallowingthe
government to conduct suspicionless drug testing. The need to prevent and deter the substantial harm of
childhooddruguseprovidesthenecessaryimmediacyforaschooltestingpolicy.Indeed,itwouldmakelittle
sensetorequireaschooldistricttowaitforasubstantialportionofitsstudentstobeginusingdrugsbeforeit
wasallowedtoinstituteadrugtestingprogramdesignedtodeterdruguse.
Giventhenationwideepidemicofdruguse,andtheevidenceofincreaseddruguseinTecumsehschools,
it was entirely reasonable for the School District to enact this particular drug testing policy. As we cannot
articulateathresholdlevelofdrugusethatwouldsufficetojustifyadrugtestingprogramforschoolchildren,
20
werefusetofashionwhatwouldineffectbeaconstitutionalquantumofdrugusenecessarytoshowa“drug
problem.”
Respondentsalsoarguethatthetestingofnonathletesdoesnotimplicateanysafetyconcerns,andthat
safetyisa“crucialfactor”inapplyingthespecialneedsframework.Theycontendthattheremustbe“surpassing
safetyinterests,”inordertooverridetheusualprotectionsoftheFourthAmendment.Respondentsarecorrect
thatsafetyfactorsintothespecialneedsanalysis,butthesafetyinterestfurtheredbydrugtestingisundoubtedly
substantialforallchildren,athletesandnonathletesalike.Weknowalltoowellthatdrugusecarriesavariety
ofhealthrisksforchildren,includingdeathfromoverdose.
Wefindthattestingstudentswhoparticipateinextracurricularactivitiesisareasonablyeffectivemeansof
addressingtheSchoolDistrict’slegitimateconcernsinpreventing,deterring,anddetectingdruguse.Whilein
Vernoniatheremighthavebeenacloserfitbetweenthetestingofathletesandthetrialcourt’sfindingthatthe
drugproblemwas“fueledbythe‘rolemodel’effectofathletes’druguse,”suchafindingwasnotessentialto
theholding.Vernoniadidnotrequiretheschooltotestthegroupofstudentsmostlikelytousedrugs,butrather
consideredtheconstitutionalityoftheprograminthecontextofthepublicschool’scustodialresponsibilities.
EvaluatingthePolicyinthiscontext,weconcludethatthedrugtestingofTecumsehstudentswhoparticipatein
extracurricularactivitieseffectivelyservestheSchoolDistrict’sinterestinprotectingthesafetyandhealthofits
students.
Within the limits of the Fourth Amendment, local school boards must assess the desirability of drug
testingschoolchildren.InupholdingtheconstitutionalityofthePolicy,weexpressnoopinionastoitswisdom.
Rather,weholdonlythatTecumseh’sPolicyisareasonablemeansoffurtheringtheSchoolDistrict’simportant
interestinpreventinganddeterringdruguseamongitsschoolchildren.Accordingly,wereversethejudgment
oftheCourtofAppeals.
JusticeBREYER,concurring.
In my view, this program does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable
searches and seizures.” I reach this conclusion primarily for the reasons given by the Court, but I would
emphasizeseveralunderlyingconsiderations,whichIunderstandtobeconsistentwiththeCourt’sopinion.
Inrespecttotheschool’sneedforthedrugtestingprogram,Iwouldemphasizethefollowing:First,the
drug problem in our Nation’s schools is serious in terms of size, the kinds of drugs being used, and the
consequencesofthatusebothforourchildrenandtherestofus.Second,thegovernment’semphasisupon
supplysideinterdictionapparentlyhasnotreducedteenageuseinrecentyears.Third,publicschoolsystems
mustfindeffectivewaystodealwiththisproblem.Today’spublicexpectsitsschoolsnotsimplytoteachthe
fundamentals,but“toshouldertheburdenoffeedingstudentsbreakfastandlunch,offeringbeforeandafter
schoolchildcareservices,andprovidingmedicalandpsychologicalservices,”allinaschoolenvironmentthatis
safeandencourageslearning.Thelawitselfrecognizestheseresponsibilitieswiththephraseinlocoparentis--
a phrase that draws its legal force primarily from the needs of younger students (who here are necessarily
groupedtogetherwitholderhighschoolstudents)andwhichreflects,notthatachildoradolescentlacksan
interest in privacy, but that a child’s or adolescent’s school-related privacy interest, when compared to the
privacyinterestsofanadult,hasdifferentdimensions.Apublicschoolsystemthatfailsadequatelytocarryout
itsresponsibilitiesmaywellseeparentssendtheirchildrentoprivateorparochialschoolinstead--withhelp
fromtheState.
Fourth, the program at issue here seeks to discourage demand for drugs by changing the school’s
environmentinordertocombatthesinglemostimportantfactorleadingschoolchildrentotakedrugs,namely,
peer pressure. It offers the adolescent a nonthreatening reason to decline his friend’s drug use invitations,
namely,thatheintendstoplaybaseball,participateindebate,jointheband,orengageinanyoneofhalfa
dozenuseful,interesting,andimportantactivities.
Inrespecttotheprivacy-relatedburdenthatthedrugtestingprogramimposesuponstudents,Iwould
emphasize the following: First, not everyone would agree with this Court’s characterization of the privacyrelatedsignificanceofurinesamplingas“negligible.”Somefindtheprocedurenomoreintrusivethanaroutine
21
medicalexamination,butothersareseriouslyembarrassedbytheneedtoprovideaurinesamplewithsomeone
listening“outsidetheclosedrestroomstall.”Whentryingtoresolvethiskindofclosequestioninvolvingthe
interpretationofconstitutionalvalues,Ibelieveitimportantthattheschoolboardprovidedanopportunityfor
theairingofthesedifferencesatpublicmeetingsdesignedtogivetheentirecommunity“theopportunitytobe
able to participate” in developing the drug policy. The board used this democratic, participatory process to
uncoverandtoresolvedifferences,givingweighttothefactthattheprocess,inthisinstance,revealedlittle,if
any,objectiontotheproposedtestingprogram.
Second,thetestingprogramavoidssubjectingtheentireschooltotesting.Anditpreservesanoption
foraconscientiousobjector.Hecanrefusetestingwhilepayingaprice(nonparticipation)thatisserious,but
lessseverethanexpulsionfromtheschool.
Icannotknowwhethertheschool’sdrugtestingprogramwillwork.But,inmyview,theConstitution
doesnotprohibittheeffort.EmphasizingtheconsiderationsIhavementioned,alongwithotherstowhichthe
Courtrefers,Iconcludethattheschool’sdrugtestingprogram,constitutionallyspeaking,isnot“unreasonable.”
AndIjointheCourt’sopinion.
Justice GINSBURG, with whom Justice STEVENS, Justice O’CONNOR, and Justice SOUTER join,
dissenting.
This case presents circumstances dispositively different from those of Vernonia. True, as the Court
stresses,Tecumsehstudentsparticipatingincompetitiveextracurricularactivitiesotherthanathleticssharetwo
relevant characteristics with the athletes of Vernonia. First, both groups attend public schools. Concern for
studenthealthandsafetyisbasictotheschool’scaretaking,anditisundeniablethat“drugusecarriesavariety
ofhealthrisksforchildren,includingdeathfromoverdose.”
Thoserisks,however,arepresentforallschoolchildren.Vernoniacannotbereadtoendorseinvasive
andsuspicionlessdrugtestingofallstudentsuponanyevidenceofdruguse,solelybecausedrugsjeopardize
thelifeandhealthofthosewhousethem.Manychildren,likemanyadults,engageindangerousactivitieson
theirowntime;thatthechildrenareenrolledinschoolscarcelyallowsgovernmenttomonitorallsuchactivities.
Ifastudenthasareasonablesubjectiveexpectationofprivacyinthepersonalitemsshebringstoschool,surely
shehasasimilarexpectationregardingthechemicalcompositionofherurine.HadtheVernoniaCourtagreed
thatpublicschoolattendance,inandofitself,permittedtheStatetotesteachstudent’sbloodorurinefordrugs,
theopinioninVernoniacouldhavesavedmanywords.
ThesecondcommonalitytowhichtheCourtpointsisthevoluntarycharacterofbothinterscholastic
athleticsandothercompetitiveextracurricularactivities.
Thecomparisonisenlightening.Whileextracurricularactivitiesare“voluntary”inthesensethatthey
arenotrequiredforgraduation,theyarepartoftheschool’seducationalprogram;forthatreason,thepetitioner
(hereinafterSchoolDistrict)isjustifiedinexpendingpublicresourcestomakethemavailable.Participationin
suchactivitiesisakeycomponentofschoollife,essentialinrealityforstudentsapplyingtocollege,and,forall
participants, a significant contributor to the breadth and quality of the educational experience. Students
“volunteer”forextracurricularpursuitsinthesamewaytheymightvolunteerforhonorsclasses:Theysubject
themselvestoadditionalrequirements,buttheydosoinordertotakefulladvantageoftheeducationoffered
them.
Voluntary participation in athletics has a distinctly different dimension: Schools regulate student
athletes discretely because competitive school sports by their nature require communal undress and, more
important,exposestudentstophysicalrisksthatschoolshaveadutytomitigate.Fortheveryreasonthatschools
cannotofferaprogramofcompetitiveathleticswithoutintimatelyaffectingtheprivacyofstudents,Vernonia
reasonably analogized school athletes to “adults who choose to participate in a closely regulated industry.”
Industries fall within the closely regulated category when the nature of their activities requires substantial
governmentoversight.Interscholasticathleticssimilarlyrequireclosesafetyandhealthregulation;aschool’s
choir,band,andacademicteamdonot.
22
On“occasionalout-of-towntrips,”studentslikeLindsayEarls“mustsleeptogetherincommunalsettings
andusecommunalbathrooms.”Butthosesituationsarehardlyequivalenttotheroutinecommunalundress
associated with athletics; the School District itself admits that when such trips occur, “public-like restroom
facilities,” which presumably include enclosed stalls, are ordinarily available for changing, and that “more
modeststudents”findotherwaystomaintaintheirprivacy.
The“natureandimmediacyofthegovernmentalconcern”facedbytheVernoniaSchoolDistrictdwarfed
thatconfrontingTecumsehadministrators.Vernoniainitiateditsdrugtestingpolicyinresponsetoanalarming
situation.Tecumseh,bycontrast,repeatedlyreportedtotheFederalGovernmentduringtheperiodleadingup
to the adoption of the policy that “types of drugs [other than alcohol and tobacco] including controlled
dangeroussubstances,arepresent[intheschools]buthavenotidentifiedthemselvesasmajorproblemsatthis
time.”
Not only did the Vernonia and Tecumseh districts confront drug problems of distinctly different
magnitudes, they also chose different solutions: Vernonia limited its policy to athletes; Tecumseh
indiscriminatelysubjectedtotestingallparticipantsincompetitiveextracurricularactivities.
Atthemargins,ofcourse,nopolicyofrandomdrugtestingisperfectlytailoredtotheharmsitseeksto
address.TheSchoolDistrictcitesthedangersfacedbymembersoftheband,whomust“performextremely
preciseroutineswithheavyequipmentandinstrumentsincloseproximitytootherstudents,”andbyFuture
FarmersofAmerica,who“arerequiredtoindividuallycontrolandrestrainanimalsaslargeas1500pounds.”
Notwithstanding nightmarish images of out-of-control flatware, livestock run amok, and colliding tubas
disturbingthepeaceandquietofTecumseh,thegreatmajorityofstudentstheSchoolDistrictseekstotestin
truthareengagedinactivitiesthatarenotsafetysensitivetoanunusualdegree.Thereisadifferencebetween
imperfecttailoringandnotailoringatall.
TheVernoniadistrict,insum,hadtwogoodreasonsfortestingathletes:Sportsteammembersfaced
specialhealthrisksandthey“weretheleadersofthedrugculture.”Nosimilarreason,andnoothertenable
justification, explains Tecumseh’s decision to target for testing all participants in every competitive
extracurricularactivity.
Nationwide,studentswhoparticipateinextracurricularactivitiesaresignificantlylesslikelytodevelop
substanceabuseproblemsthanaretheirless-involvedpeers.Evenifstudentsmightbedeterredfromdruguse
inordertopreservetheirextracurriculareligibility,itisatleastaslikelythatotherstudentsmightforgotheir
extracurricular involvement in order to avoid detection of their drug use. Tecumseh’s policy thus falls short
doublyifdeterrenceisitsaim:Itinvadestheprivacyofstudentswhoneeddeterrenceleast,andriskssteering
studentsatgreatestriskforsubstanceabuseawayfromextracurricularinvolvementthatpotentiallymaypalliate
drugproblems.
Tosummarize,thiscaseresemblesVernoniaonlyinthattheSchoolDistrictsinbothcasesconditioned
engagement in activities outside the obligatory curriculum on random subjection to urinalysis. The defining
characteristics of the two programs, however, are entirely dissimilar. The Vernonia district sought to test a
subpopulationofstudentsdistinguishedbytheirreducedexpectationofprivacy,theirspecialsusceptibilityto
drug-relatedinjury,andtheirheavyinvolvementwithdruguse.TheTecumsehdistrictseekstotestamuch
largerpopulationassociatedwithnoneofthesefactors.Itdoesso,moreover,withoutcarefullysafeguarding
studentconfidentialityandwithoutregardtotheprogram’suntowardeffects.Aprogramsosweepingisnot
shelteredbyVernonia;itsunreasonablereachrendersitimpermissibleundertheFourthAmendment.Forthe
reasons stated, I would affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit declaring the testing policy at issue
unconstitutional.
NOTE:Thisopinionhasbeeneditedforusebystudentsandteachers.Foreaseofreading,noindicationhas
beenmadeofdeletedmaterialandcasecitations.Anylegalorscholarlyuseofthiscaseshouldrefertothefull
opinion.
23