1

BoardofEducationv.Earls–TheFourthAmendmentandJudicialProcess

OverviewInthislesson,studentswillexploretheSupremeCourtcaseBoardofEducationv.Earls,inwhichhighschoolsophomoreLindsayEarlschallengedherschool’sdrugtestingpolicy.Studentswillwatchadocumentaryonthecase,applytheFourthAmendmenttothecase,andfurthertheirunderstandingbyparticipationinactivitiessuchascreatingananti-drugcampaignandamootcourtormocktrial.Grades10-11NCEssentialStandardsforAmericanHistory: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

2

• Teacher’sGuidetoMootCourtArguments• Glossary(studentreferencedocument,ifneeded)• BoardofEducationv.EarlsOpinion,edited,attachedDuration2blockperiodsProcedureDayOne

Warm-Up:NewRulesinSchool1. Asawarm-up,tellstudentsthatyouhavesomenewsforthemandyou’dliketogleantheiropinions.(Try

tomaketheannouncementyoushareasbelievableaspossible).Explaintostudentsthatstartingnextsemesternewschoolboardpolicieswillgointoeffect.Thenewpoliciesincludethatstudentsmustdumpoutthebelongingsoftheirbookbags,purses,pockets,etc.atleastonceadayduringrandomclassroomraidsbytheadministration.Also,lockerdoorswillbereplacedwithclearplexiglassdoorssothattheprincipalcantellifthereareanyweaponsordrugsbeingkeptinside.Mostimportantly,therewillberandomdrugtestsforallstudentsparticipatinginextracurricularactivities.Allowstudentstoexpresstheiropinionsopenlyonthesenewpolicies.Usethefollowingquestionstogagetheirfeelings:• Howdoyoufeelaboutthenewschoolboardpolicies?Whydoyouthinkthesepoliciesarebeing

implemented?• Ifyoufeelitisn’tfairtoforceeveryonetogiveuptheirprivacybecausesomestudentsbreaktherules,

whatalternativesdoyourecommendtoensureweareallsafe?• Howmuchprivacydoyouexpecttohaveatschool?• Doyounowhavemoreprivacyatschoolorhome?Doyouexpectmoreprivacyatschoolorathome?

Why?

Documentary:Educationv.Earls2. Letstudentsknowthattherehavebeennosuchchangesinschoolboardpolicy,buttheyaregoingtobe

watchingadocumentaryaboutaSupremeCourtcaseinvolvingschooldrugtestingthatelicitedfeelingssuchasthosetheyjustfeltinthepeopleinvolved.Teachersshoulddeterminewhichoftheviewingoptionsbelowtheywilluse.Whileasynopsisofthecaseisprovidedforteacherreference,studentsneednofurtherintroductiontothefilm.• TeacherReference-SynopsisoftheCase

InordertocombatincreasingdruguseamongTecumsehstudents,theschoolboarddecidedtoadoptanewdrugtestingpolicy.Thepolicyrequiredthatallstudentsparticipatinginextracurricularactivitiesbedrugtestedatthebeginningoftheyearandrandomlythroughouttheyear.LindsayEarls,asophomorewhoparticipatedinchoirandacademicteam,believedthepolicywasunconstitutionalandrefusedtosigntheconsentforms.WiththehelpofherparentsandtheACLU,Lindsaybroughtsuitagainsttheschoolboard.TheDistrictCourtheldthatthepolicywasconstitutional,soLindsayappealed.The10thCircuitCourtofAppealsreversedtheDistrictCourt’sdecision,holdingthatthepolicywasunconstitutional.Ultimately,thecasewenttotheSupremeCourt,whichheldthatthepolicywasconstitutional.

• ViewingOptionsThereareseveralwaysyoucanchoosetohavetheclassviewthedocumentary.o YoumaychoosetohavetheclasswatchthevideowithnopausesandhavestudentsworkontheattachedViewer’sGuidewhilewatching

o SuggestedViewing:Youmaychoosetopausethevideoatthetimesoutlinedbelowandasktheclasstodiscussthequestionslisted.StudentsmaycompletethequestionsbelowinadditiontoorinsteadofthequestionsontheViewer’sGuide.

3

§ DiscussionPoint#1/Activity:(Pauseat3:27).Tellthestudentsthattheywillbeparticipatinginamockschoolboardmeetingwheretheymustcreateaschooldrugtestingpolicy.Dividestudentsintogroupsoffive.Assigneachmemberofagrouponeofthefollowingroles:schoolboardmember,teacher,studentathlete,parent,andsoccercoach.Then,intheirrespectiveroles,havestudentsdiscuss(writethesequestionsontheboard):

• Whowillbetested?• Whatdrugswillstudentsbetestedfor?• Howwillstudentsbeselectedfordrugtesting?• Howoftenwillstudentsbetested?• Whatwilltheconsequencesbeforstudentswhotestpositivefordrugs?• Aretherewaysotherthandrugtestingtocombataschool’sdrugproblem?

Afterstudentsaredonediscussingintheircharacter,theteachershouldallowtheclasstodebrief:Wasthatactivitydifficultandwhy?Wereyousurprisedbytheideassharedatthemeetingandwhy?Whatwasyouropinion(incharacter)ofthepolicycreatedbyyourgroup?Whatisyourpersonalopinion(notincharacter)ofthepolicy?

§ DiscussionPoint#2:(Pauseat5:56)Askthestudentstodiscusswhattheywoulddoiftheywererequiredtosignaformconsentingtodrugtesting.Wouldtheysignit?Wouldtheytalktotheirparents?Wouldtheychoosenottoparticipateintheextracurricularactivity?Iftheychosetogototheirparents,howmanystudentsthinktheirparentswoulddowhatDavidEarlsdid?

§ DiscussionPoint#3:(Pauseat14:51)Askstudentshowinvasivetheyfeelthedrugtestingpolicyis.Aretherewaysthattheprocedurescouldbelessinvasive?

You’reHired:CreateanAnti-DrugCampaign!

3. Oncethedocumentaryhasended,dividestudentsintosmallgroups(3-4students,dependingonthesizeoftheclass).Telltheclassthattheirschoolboardhasdecidedthatbeforeimplementingadrugtestingpolicy,theywanttotryananti-drugcampaign.Tellthestudentsthattheyareemployeesatvariousadvertisingcompaniesandtheschoolboardhasaskedeachgrouptocomeupwithananti-drugcampaign.Handoutandgoovertheattachedassignmentsheetthengiveeachgroup15-20minutestocompletetheiradvertisement.Tellstudentsthatuponcompletion,theywill“pitch”theiradvertisingideatotheschoolboard(theclass)bypresentingitandacceptinganyquestions.Theclasswillthenvoteonthemosteffectivecampaign.

Day2

MootCourt:Vernoniav.ActonandBoardofEducationv.Earls4. Letstudentsknowthattheywillbeparticipatinginaprosecourt.Aprosecourtallowsstudentstorole-

playacourtcasewiththesmallestpossiblenumberofparticipantsandbasicrulesofevidence.Thecourtisorganizedasagroupofthreeparticipants:thejudge,whowillhearthetwosidesandmakethefinaldecision;thepetitioner,whobringsthesuitbeforethecourt;andtherespondentinwhichthesuitisbeingbroughtagainst.Prosecourtsgivestudentsasimplifiedlookatjudicialdecisionmakingwhilepresentinganopportunityforallstudentsinaclasstobeactivelyengagedintheprocess.

5. First,distributecopiesoftheattachedstudenthandoutreviewingthefactsofthecaseandtheopinionforVernoniav.Acton,asimilarlandmarkSupremeCourtcase.StudentswillreadtheopinionindividuallyandanswertheGuidedReadingQuestions.

6. Next,assignrolesfortheProSeCourt.Havestudentscountofffrom1-6todividetheclassintosixequalgroups.Individualswhoare1’s&4’swillbejudges,2’s&5’swillbethepetitioner(whichinthiscaseistheBoardofEducation),3’s&6’swillbetherespondent(thelawyersforLindsayEarls).Instructstudentstomeetintheirrespectivegroupstoprepareforthesimulation.Eachstudentwillbeactivelyinvolvedintheroleplay,sopreparationatthisstageiscriticaltosuccessfulparticipationinthesimulation.

4

7. Givestudentstheattachedtipsheetstoassisttheminpreparingforcourt.Thetwosetsofpetitionerandtherespondentgroupswillprepareanopeningstatementandargumentssupportingtheirpositionsontheissuesraisedinthecase.Meanwhile,thetwogroupsofjudgeswillreviewthecaseandpreparequestionsthattheywouldliketoaskofthepetitionerandrespondentduringthepresentationphaseoftheactivity.Thesequestionsshouldbedesignedtoclarifypositionsontheissueswhichthejudgeswillbecalledupontodecide.Teachersshouldtakesometimeduringthepreparationphasetomeetwiththejudgesandreviewsomesimplerulesofprocedure,suchas:• Thepetitionershouldpresentfirst,withoutinterruptionsfromthedefense.Therespondentpresents

hisorhercasesecond.• Allowforbriefrebuttalsfromeachsideinthecase.• Thejudgemayinterruptthepresentationsatanytimetoposequestionsdesignedtoclarifythe

argumentsbeingmade.(Source:Teacher'sGuide,WethePeopletheCitizenandtheConstitution)8. Oncestudentshavesufficientlyprepared,arrangetheclassroom.Youwillhavemultiplecourtsinsession

simultaneously;therefore,arrangethedesksintheclassroomintogroupsofthree,oneforeachoftherolesintheactivity.Beforebeginningtheactivity,matchonejudge,onepetitioner,andonerespondent.Teachersmaywanttohavethejudgesfirsttakeadeskineachofthegroupingsarrangedaroundtheroom.Thenaskonepetitionerandonerespondenttojointhegroup.Matchingrole-playersmaybemoreeasilyaccomplishedbyprovidingroletagssostudentscanquicklyidentifywhoisajudge,petitioner,andrespondent.

9. Conductthecourthearingusingthefollowingprocedures:• Instructthejudgesthatwheneachhasapetitionerandarespondentpresent,he/shemaybeginthe

courtsession.• Thejudgeshouldfirsthearopeningstatementsbytheparticipants-firstthepetitionerandthenthe

respondent.Aonetotwo-minutetimelimitshouldbeimposedonthesestatements.o Thepetitionermakesargumentsandisquestionedbythejudge.o Therespondentpresentshis/herdefenseandisquestionedbythejudge.

• Thejudgeaskseachsideforbriefrebuttalstatements.• Thejudgemakeshis/herdecisionandexplainsthereasoningwhichsupportsit.

10. Afterallcourtsarecomplete,debrieftheactivitywiththeclass.Askthejudgestosharetheirdecisions

andthereasoningsupportingit.Discussthestrengthsandweaknessesoftheargumentsandfactspresentedinthecase.CounthowmanyjudgesdecidedinfavorofLindsayandhowmanydecidedinfavoroftheSchoolBoard.

Court’sOpinion:BoardofEducationv.Earls

11. UsetheattachedBoardofEducationv.EarlsopiniontodiscusshowtheSupremeCourtactuallyruledintheEarlscase(teacherscansummarizeandexplaintheopiniontostudents,orsupplyeachstudentwithacopyofthehandouttoread):

• Doyouagreeordisagreewiththeholdingandwhy?• TheSupremeCourthassaidthatminorshavelowerprivacyexpectationsthanadults.Doyou

agreewiththis?Whyorwhynot?• Whatdoyouthinkwillhappeninthefuture…

o Doyouthinkthatmoreschoolswillimplementdrug-testingpolicieslikeTecumseh’s?o DoyouthinktheSupremeCourtwouldapproveadrugtestingpolicythatrequired

testingofallstudentswhoattendaschool?Whyorwhynot?

Lindsay’s Lawyer The Board’s Lawyer

Judge

5

o DoyouthinktheSupremeCourtwouldapprovethetestingofstudentsforsubstancessuchastobacco,alcoholorAdderall?

AdditionalActivity• InBoardofEducationv.Earls,theSupremeCourtheldthatrandomdrugtestingofstudentsparticipating

inextracurricularactivitieswasconstitutional.Incomingtothisdecision,themajorityexaminedtheprivacyexpectationsofstudentsandtheintrusivenessofthedrugtestingandtheschoolboard’sinterest.

ImagineyourlocalschoolboardhasdecidedtoimplementadrugtestingpolicysimilartotheoneinEarls.Theonlydifferenceisthatratherthantestingonlythosestudentsparticipatinginextracurricularactivities,theschoolboardwantstotestallstudents.Writealettertotheschoolboardvoicingyoursupportordisapprovalofthepolicy.Youmayuseinformationfromthedocumentary,Vernonia,andEarlstosupportyourposition.

Asyouwriteyourletter,rememberto:

o Organizeyourlettersothatyourideasprogresslogically.o Includerelevantdetailsthatclearlydevelopyourletter.o Edityourletterforstandardgrammarandlanguageusage.

DifferentiationStudentswithSpecialNeeds• Ensurethatstudentsareplacedinmixedabilitygroups.• StudentsmayhavemoredifficultywithVernoniav.Actonreading.Accessabriefdescriptionofthecase

andcourtopinionatwww.oyez.org.Entercasenameinthesearchbarinthetoprighthand.• StudentsthatmayhavedifficultyparticipatinginMootCourtcanbeassignedasnewsreporters.Theywill

listentoargumentsofoneormoregroupsandwriteanewscastdescribingthefactsofthecase,theargumentsthatwerepresented,andthedecisionofthejudge.

AIG• HavestudentsreviewtheSchoolBoardhandbookanddiscussissuestheyfindtoberelatedto

constitutionalrights.Discusswhytheschoolboardpolicieswerepassed.

6

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’sargumentsthattheoutcomeofthiscaseshouldbedifferentfromtheoutcomeofVernonia?10.WhataresomeoftheSchoolBoard’sargumentsthattheoutcomeofthiscaseshouldbethesameastheoutcomeofVernonia?

7

BoardofEducationv.EarlsViewer’sGuide-ANSWERKEY

1.InVernonia,whatstudentsweretestedandwhy?AthletesweretestedinVernoniabecausetheyweretheleadersofthedrugcultureandtherewasariskthattheywouldbehurtwhileparticipatinginsports.2.UnderTecumseh’spolicy,whathappenedthefirsttimeastudenttestedpositivefordrugs?Thefirsttimeastudenttestedpositive,heorshewouldreceivecounseling.3.WhatextracurricularactivitydoesLindsaysaysheisinvolvedin?Lindsaysaysshewasinvolvedinchoir.4.WhodidDavidEarlscontactforlegalassistance?DavidEarlscontactedlocalattorneyswhowerenotinterestedinthecase.HealsocontactedtheACLUwhochosetotakethecase5.WhoisGrahamBoyd?GrahamBoydisLindsay’sattorney.HeisthedirectoroftheACLU’sprogramthatchallengesdrug-relatedlaws.6.WhydidtheACLUlikethe10thCircuit?TheACLUlikedthe10thCircuitbecausetheCourthadalreadydecidedaFourthAmendmentcaseagainstthegovernmentandbecausethe10thcircuithasareputationforbeingveryliberal.7.WholostattheDistrictCourt?Lindsay.8.WhatdidJudgeEbelthinkwasLindsay’smostcompellingargumentinfrontofthe10thCircuit?JudgeEbelsaidthatLindsay’sstrongestargumentwasthatifastudentisusingdrugs,thebestwaytogetthemtostopistokeepthembusyinschool.9.WhataresomeofLindsay’sargumentsthattheoutcomeofthiscaseshouldbedifferentfromtheoutcomeofVernonia?Vernoniashouldbelimitedtoathletes.ThereisnotadrugproblematTecumsehliketherewasatVernonia.TheinvasionofprivacyhereismuchgreaterthanitwasinVernonia,becauseathleteshavealowerexpectationofprivacy10.WhataresomeoftheSchoolBoardsargumentsthattheoutcomeofthiscaseshouldbethesameastheoutcomeofVernonia?Vernoniaisnotonlylimitedtoathletes,itcanapplytoanypolicywheretheschoolhasaspecialneed.Theinvasionofprivacyhereisminimalbecauseurinesamplesarecommonandtheprocedureusedwasnotanymoreinvasivethanusingapublicrestroom.

8

Anti-DrugCampaignAssignment

Welcometothe_________________AdvertisingAgency!Asadvertisingspecialists,yourgroup’sjobistodesignanAnti-DrugCampaignforyourschooldistrict.Buttherearemanyotherfirmsthatwouldlovetowintheprojectaswell.YourresponsibilityistopresentacreativeandeffectivecampaignproposaltotheSchoolBoardmemberstowinthejob.

Responsibilities:

ü DevelopacampaigntopitchtotheSchoolBoard.Remember,theaudienceforyourcampaignishighschoolstudents.Yourcampaignshouldincludeatleasttwoofthefollowingcomponents:

o Avisualaid(posters,billboards,etc.)o Anannouncementtobeplayedovertheintercomorlocalradiostationo Asongorraptobeplayedovertheintercomorlocalradiostationo Askittobepresentedataschoolassemblyo AcommercialtobeairedonthelocalTVstationduringclass

ü Yourcampaignmustincludeanoverallmotto(catchyslogan)ü Planasalespitchaboutwhyyourcampaignwillreducedruguseintheschooldistricttosharewith

theSchoolBoardmembers.Whenfinished,youwillpresentyoursalespitch(anintroductiontoyourcampaigninwhichyoushareyourmotto/slogan,aswellaswhyyourcampaignwillbeeffectiveinreducingdruguse);followedbythepresentationofyouractualcampaign(youwillactoutyourskitorcommercial,performyoursongorrap,showyourvisualaid,etc.)Attheendofclass,eachofyouwillassumetheroleofaschoolboardmemberandvoteonwhichadvertisingfirmyouwanttohire.

9

ComparingVernoniaSchoolDistrictv.ActontoEarlsv.BoardofEd.FactsoftheEarlsCase:TheStudentActivitiesDrugTestingPolicyadoptedbytheTecumseh,OklahomaSchoolDistrict(SchoolDistrict)requiresallmiddleandhighschoolstudentstoconsenttourinalysistestingfordrugsinordertoparticipateinanyextracurricularactivity.TwoTecumsehHighSchoolstudentsandtheirparentsbroughtsuit,allegingthatthepolicyviolatestheFourthAmendment.TheDistrictCourtgrantedtheSchoolDistrictsummaryjudgment.Inreversing,theCourtofAppealsheldthatthepolicyviolatedtheFourthAmendment.Theappellatecourtconcludedthatbeforeimposingasuspicionlessdrug-testingprogramaschoolmustdemonstratesomeidentifiabledrugabuseproblemamongasufficientnumberofthosetested,suchthattestingthatgroupwillactuallyredressitsdrugproblem,whichtheSchoolDistricthadfailedtodemonstrate.

ConstitutionalQuestion:IstheStudentActivitiesDrugTestingPolicy,whichrequiresallstudentswhoparticipateincompetitiveextracurricularactivitiestosubmittodrugtesting,consistentwiththeFourthAmendment?

VERNONIASCHOOLDISTRICTv.ACTON515U.S.646(1995)

Duringthelate1980s,schoolsinthecommunityofVernoniaOregonwereexperiencingasharpincreaseindruguseanddisciplinaryproblemsamongstudents.Theschooldistrictwasparticularlyconcernedthatstudentathletes,theleadersofthedrugculture,mightsuffersports-relatedinjuries.TheDistrictrespondedbyimplementinganewpolicy,whichrequiredthatallstudentswishingtoplayasportsignaformconsentingtothetesting.Athletesweretestedatthebeginningoftheseasonandathletesweredrawnweeklyfromapoolforrandomtesting.In1991,JamesActonwasdeniedparticipationinfootballafterherefusedtoconsenttotesting.TheActonsfiledsuit,whichwassubsequentlydismissedbytheDistrictCourt.TheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitreversed,holdingthatthepolicywasunconstitutional.JusticeSCALIAdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt TheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionprovidesthattheFederalGovernmentshallnotviolate“therightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons...againstunreasonablesearchesandseizure”Whetheraparticularsearchmeetsthereasonablenessstandard“isjudgedbybalancingitsintrusionontheindividual’sFourthAmendmentinterestsagainstitspromotionoflegitimategovernmentalinterests.” Thefirstfactortobeconsideredisthenatureoftheprivacyinterestuponwhichthesearchatissueintrudes.Minorslacksomeofthemostfundamentalrightsofself-determination;theyaresubjecttothecontroloftheirparentsorguardians.Fortheirowngood,publicschoolchildrenareroutinelyrequiredtosubmittovariousphysicalexaminations,andtobevaccinatedagainstvariousdiseases.Therefore,“studentswithintheschoolenvironmenthavealesserexpectationofprivacythanmembersofthepopulationgenerally.”Privacyexpectationsareevenlesswithregardtostudentathletes.Schoolsportsarenotforthebashful,andlockerroomsarenotnotablefortheprivacytheyafford.

Weturnnexttothecharacteroftheintrusionthatiscomplainedof.UndertheDistrict’sPolicymalestudentsproducesamplesataurinalalongawall.Femalestudentsproducesamplesinanenclosedstall,withafemalemonitorstandingoutside.Theseconditionsarenearlyidenticaltothosetypicallyencounteredinpublicrestrooms.Undersuchconditions,theprivacyinterestscompromisedareinourviewnegligible.Accordingly,wereachtheconclusionthattheinvasionofprivacywasnotsignificant.

Finally,weturntoconsiderthenatureandimmediacyofthegovernmentalconcernatissuehere.TheDistrict“mustdemonstratea‘compellingneed’fortheprogram.”Thephrasedescribesaninterestthatappearsimportantenoughtojustifytheparticularsearchathand,inlightofotherfactorsthatshowthesearchtoberelativelyintrusiveuponagenuineexpectationofprivacy.Whetherthatrelativelyhighdegreeofgovernmentconcernisnecessaryinthiscaseornot,wethinkitismet.

Schoolyearsarethetimewhenthephysical,psychologicalandaddictiveeffectsofdrugsaremostsevere.Andofcoursetheeffectsofadrug-infestedschoolarevisitednotjustupontheusers,butupontheentirestudentbodyandfaculty,astheeducationalprocessisdisrupted.Finally,itmustnotbelostsightofthat

10

thisprogramisdirectedmorenarrowlytodrugusebyschoolathletes,wheretheriskofimmediatephysicalharmtothedruguserorthosewithwhomheisplayinghissportareparticularlyhigh.

Respondentsarguethata“lessintrusivemeanstothesameend”wasavailable,namely,“drugtestingonsuspicionofdruguse.”Itmaybeimpracticable,foronething,simplybecausetheparentswhoarewillingtoacceptrandomdrugtestingofathletearenotwillingtoacceptaccusatorydrugtestingforallstudents,whichtransformstheprocessintoabadgeofshame.Respondents’proposalbringstheriskthatteacherswillimposetestingarbitrarilyupontroublesomebutnotdrug-likelystudents.

Takingintoaccountallthefactorswehaveconsideredabove...weconcludeVernonia’sPolicyisreasonableandhenceconstitutional.Wethereforevacatethejudgment,andremandthecasetotheCourtofAppealsforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.JusticeGINSBURG,concurring. TheCourtconstantlyobservesthattheSchoolDistrict’sdrug-testingpolicyappliesonlytostudentswhovoluntarilyparticipateininterscholasticathletics.IcomprehendtheCourt’sopinionasreservingthequestionwhethertheDistrict,onnomorethantheshowingmadehere,constitutionallycouldimposeroutinedrugtestingnotonlyonthoseseekingtoengagewithothersinteamsports,butonallstudentsrequiredtoattendschool.JusticeO’CONNOR,withwhomJusticeSTEVENSandJusticeSOUTERjoin,dissenting. ThepopulationofourNation’spublicschools,grades7through12,numbersaround18million.Bythereasoningoftoday’sdecision,themillionsofthesestudentswhoparticipateininterscholasticsports,anoverwhelmingmajorityofwhomhavegivenschoolofficialsnoreasontosuspecttheyusedrugsatschool,areopentoanintrusivebodilysearch. IhaveseriousdoubtswhethertheCourtisrightthattheDistrictreasonablyfoundthatthelesserintrusionofasuspicion-basedtestingprogramoutweigheditsgenuineconcernsfortheadversarialnatureofsuchaprogram,andforitsabuses.Thefearthatasuspicion-basedregimewillleadtothetestingof“troublesomebutnotdrug-likely”students,forexample,ignoresthattherequiredlevelofsuspicionintheschoolcontextisobjectivelyreasonablesuspicion.Inadditiontooverstatingitsconcernswithasuspicion-basedprogram,theDistrictseemstohaveunderstatedtheextenttowhichsuchaprogramislessintrusiveofstudents’privacy.Byinvadingtheprivacyofafewstudentsratherthanmany(nationwide,ofthousandsratherthanmillions),andbygivingpotentialsearchtargetssubstantialcontroloverwhethertheywill,infact,besearched,asuspicion-basedschemeissignificantlylessintrusive.

ThegreatironyofthiscaseisthatmostoftheevidencetheDistrictintroducedtojustifyitssuspicionlessdrugtestingprogramconsistedoffirst-orsecond-handstoriesofparticularidentifiablestudentsactinginwaysthatplainlygaverisetoreasonablesuspicionofin-schooldruguse-andthusthatwouldhavejustifiedadrug-relatedsearch.Inlightofalltheevidenceofdrugusebyparticularstudents,thereisasubstantialbasisforconcludingthatavigorousregimeofsuspicion-basedtesting(forwhichtheDistrictappearsalreadytohaverulesinplace)wouldhavegonealongwaytowardsolvingVernonia’sschooldrugproblemwhilepreservingtheFourthAmendmentrightsofJamesActonandotherslikehim. IfindunpersuasivetheCourt’sreliance,onthewidespreadpracticeofphysicalexaminationsandvaccinations.Itisworthnotingthatasuspicionrequirementforvaccinationsisnotmerelyimpractical;itisnonsensical,forvaccinationsarenotsearchesforanythinginparticularandsothereisnothingaboutwhichtobesuspicious.Asforphysicalexaminations,thepracticabilityofasuspicionrequirementishighlydoubtfulbecausetheconditionsforwhichthesephysicalexamsordinarilysearch,suchaslatentheartconditions,donotmanifestthemselvesinobservablebehaviorthewayschooldrugusedoes.Itmightalsobenotedthatphysicalexams(andofcoursevaccinations)arenotsearchesforconditionsthatreflectwrongdoingonthepartofthestudent,andsoarewhollynonaccusatoryandhavenoconsequencesthatcanberegardedaspunitive. Itcannotbetoooftenstatedthatthegreatestthreatstoourconstitutionalfreedomscomeintimesofcrisis.Butwemustalsostaymindfulthatnotallgovernmentresponsestosuchtimesarehystericaloverreactions;somecrisesarequitereal,andwhentheyare,theyservepreciselyasthecompellingstateinterestthatwehavesaidmayjustifyameasuredintrusiononconstitutionalrights.Theonlywayforjudgestomediatetheseconflictingimpulsesistodowhattheyshoulddoanyway:stayclosetotherecordineachcasethatappearsbeforethem,andmaketheirjudgmentsbasedonthatalone.Icannotavoidtheconclusionthat

11

theDistrict’ssuspicionlesspolicysweepstoobroadly,andtooimprecisely,tobereasonableundertheFourthAmendment.[NOTE:Thisopinionhasbeeneditedforusebystudentsandteachers.Foreaseofreading,noindicationhasbeenmadeofdeletedmaterialandcasecitations.Anylegalorscholarlyuseofthiscaseshouldrefertothefullopinion.]

12

Name:________________________________

VERNONIASCHOOLDISTRICTv.ACTONGuidedReadingQuestions

1. HowwastheVernoniaschooldistrictpolicysimilartotheTecumseh,OklahomaSchoolDistrictpolicy?

2. HowwastheVernoniaschooldistrictpolicydifferentfromtheTecumseh,OklahomaSchoolDistrictpolicy?

3. HowdidtheDistrictcourtrespondtothesuitfiledbytheActons?

4. HowdidtheAppealscourtrespondtotheactionsoftheDistrictCourt?HowdidthejudgesintheAppealscourtruleontheVernoniaschoolboardpolicy?

5. WhatamendmentdoesJusticeScaliarefertointhemajorityopinion?

6. DoesJusticeScaliafindtheprocessofadministeringthedrugtesttostudentstobeoverlyintrusivetothestudents’privacy?

7. DoesJusticeScaliafindadrugproblemataschooltobeanimportantissue?8. HowdoesJusticeScaliarespondtocriticsthatwanta“lessintrusivemeanstothesameend”fordrug

testingpolicy”?9. WhydoesJusticeO’Connorsupporta“suspicion-based”drugtestpolicy?10. Inyouropinion,whomakesamoresupported,logicalargument:JusticeScaliaorJusticeO’Connor?

Explain.

13

VERNONIASCHOOLDISTRICTv.ACTONGuidedReadingQuestions-ANSWERKEY

1. HowwastheVernoniaschooldistrictpolicysimilartotheTecumseh,OklahomaSchoolDistrictpolicy?DrugtestsforathletesintheVernoniaSchoolDistrictwithoutindividualsuspicionofdruguse.

2. HowwastheVernoniaschooldistrictpolicydifferentfromtheTecumseh,OklahomaSchoolDistrict

policy?Policyonlyregardedstudentsthatplayedsportstosignaformstatingtheirwillingnesstotakeadrugtest,unliketheTecumsehpolicyforallstudentsinvolvedinextracurricularactivities.

3. HowdidtheDistrictcourtrespondtothesuitfiledbytheActons?TheDistrictcourtdismissedthecase.

4. HowdidtheAppealscourtrespondtotheactionsoftheDistrictCourt?Howdidthejudgesinthe

AppealscourtruleontheVernoniaschoolboardpolicy?TheAppealsCourtruledthattheschoolboardpolicywasunconstitutional.

5. WhatamendmentdoesJusticeScaliarefertointhemajorityopinion?

4thAmendment-ProtectionofPrivacy

6. DoesJusticeScaliafindtheprocessofadministeringthedrugtesttostudentstobeoverlyintrusivetothestudents’privacy?Explain.No.Scaliaarguesitisnomoreinvasivethanusualbathroomprocess.

7. DoesJusticeScaliafindadrugproblemataschooltobeanimportantissue?

Yes.Scaliaarguesthatitaffectsotherstudentsandfaculty.

8. HowdoesJusticeScaliarespondtocriticsthatwanta“lessintrusivemeanstothesameend”fordrugtestingpolicy”?Scaliastates“theparentswhoarewillingtoacceptrandomdrugtestingofathletearenotwillingtoacceptaccusatorydrugtestingforallstudents,whichtransformstheprocessintoabadgeofshame.”

9. WhydoesJusticeO’Connorsupporta“suspicion-based”drugtestpolicy?

Drugtestingstudentsthatteachersandadministratorssuspectareusingdrugswouldhavealargereffectonsolvingthedrugproblemratherthantestingstudentsthatareunlikelytobeusingdrugs.

10. Inyouropinion,whomakesamoresupported,logicalargument:JusticeScaliaorJusticeO’Connor?

Explainusingsupportingdetailsfromthetext.Answerswillvary.

14

MootCourtTips:TheSchoolBoard

Overview1.Yourjob,asthelawyerforthepetitioner,istoconvincethejudgethattheBoard’sdrug-testingpolicyisconstitutionalandsotheCourtofAppeal’sholdingshouldbeoverruled.Asthepetitioner,youwillhaveachancetomakearebuttalaftertherespondentmakeshisorherargument,somakesuretopayattentiontotheargumentsheorshemakessoyoucaneffectivelyrespondtothem.2.Foryouropeningstatement,explainthattheCourtofAppeal’sdecisionwasincorrectandbrieflyexplainwhy.Then,concludeyouropeningbyexplainingthatforthesereasons,thelowercourt’sdecisionshouldbereversed.3.Makesureyourpresentationincludesargumentsandfactsfromthedocumentarythatwillhelpyoupersuadethejudgethatthedrug-testingpolicyisconstitutional.FormulatingYourArgumentInordertohelpyoucomeupwithyourstrongestarguments,answerthesekeyquestions:

Ø HowisthiscasesimilartoVernonia,wheretheSupremeCourtheldthattestingstudentathleteswasconstitutional?

Ø WhatdifficultieswouldtheSchoolBoardfaceiftheycouldonlyadministerdrugtestswhentherewasreasonablesuspicionaboutastudent’sdruguse?

Ø Dostudentshavethesameexpectationsofprivacyasnon-students?Why?

Ø Dominorshavethesameexpectationsofprivacyasadults?Why?

Ø Howintrusiveisadrugtest?Isitmoreintrusivethanreceivingaschool-requiredphysicalor

immunization?Whynot?

Ø WhatistheGovernment/SchoolBoard’sconcernandhowimportantisit?Dorandomdrugtestsmeettheseconcerns?

15

MootCourtTips:LindsayEarls

Overview1.Yourjob,asthelawyerfortherespondent,istoconvincethejudgethattheBoard’sdrug-testingpolicyisunconstitutionalandsotheCourtofAppeals’decisionshouldbeupheld.Astherespondent,youwillnothaveachancetomakearebuttal,somakesuretopayattentiontothepetitioner’sargumentssoyoucaneffectivelyrespondtothemwhenitisyourturntopresent.2.Foryouropeningstatement,explainthattheCourtofAppeal’sdecisionwascorrectandbrieflyexplainwhy.Then,concludeyouropeningbyexplainingthatforthesereasons,thelowercourt’sdecisionshouldbeupheld.3.Makesureyourpresentationincludesargumentsandfactsfromthedocumentarythatwillhelpyoupersuadethejudgethatthedrug-testingpolicyisunconstitutional.FormulatingYourArgumentInordertohelpyoucomeupwithyourstrongestarguments,answerthesekeyquestions:

Ø HowisthiscasedifferentfromVernonia,wheretheSupremeCourtheldthattestingstudentathleteswasconstitutional?Whymightathletesneedtobetested,butnotchoirmembers?

Ø Whywouldn’titbeaproblemfortheSchoolBoardtoadministerdrugtestsonlywhentherewasreasonablesuspicionaboutastudent’sdruguse?

Ø Dostudentshavethesameexpectationsofprivacyasnon-students?Why?

Ø Dominorshavethesameexpectationsofprivacyasadults?Why?

Ø Howintrusiveisadrugtest?Isitmoreintrusivethanreceivingaschool-requiredphysicalor

immunization?Why?

Ø WhatistheGovernment/SchoolBoard’sconcernandhowimportantisit?Dorandomdrugtestsmeettheseconcerns?

16

MootCourtTips:Judge

Overview1.Yourjobasthejudgeistoevaluatebothsides’argumentsanddecidehowyouaregoingtorule.Inordertomakethebestdecisionyoucan,itisimportanttoaskbothsidesclarifyingquestions.2.Firstyouwillaskthepetitionertostepforwardandgivehisorherarguments.Whilethepetitionerisspeaking,youmayinterruptatanytimetoaskquestions.Whenthepetitionerisfinished,tellhimorhertobeseatedandcallforwardtherespondent.Again,youmayinterrupthimorheratanytimetoaskquestions.Finally,oncetherespondentisfinished,callforwardthepetitionerforhisorherrebuttal.3.Oncethepetitionerisdone,takeafewminutestogooveryournotesandmakeyourdecision.Whenyouaredone,tellthepetitionerandrespondentwhatyouhavedecidedandwhy.FormulatingQuestionsInpreparationforcourt,youwillwanttothinkabouttheargumentsthateachsidewillmake.Forexample,LindsayEarls’Lawyermayarguethathavingsomeonelisteningtoyouwhileyouurinateisagreatinvasionofprivacy,soyoumaywanttoask,“Howisthisanydifferentthanusingapublicrestroom?”Inordertocomeupwiththebestquestionstoask,answerthefollowingquestions:

Ø Whatisthepetitioner’sbestargument?Asktherespondentaboutthis.

Ø Whatistherespondent’sbestargument?Askthepetitioneraboutthis.

Ø Isthereadrugproblemattheschool?

Ø Whatprivacyexpectationdostudentshavewhileinschool?

Ø HowisthesituationinTecumsehsimilarto,ordifferentfrom,thesituationinVernonia?

Ø Doathleteshaveadifferentexpectationofprivacythannon-athletes?

17

TEACHER’SGUIDE:MOOTCOURTARGUMENTSAsstudentsworktogethertodevelopargumentsfortheirside,walkaroundtheclassroomandofferassistance.Youmaychoosetogiveeachsidesomeexamplesofstrongargumentsoryoumayusethisguideasatooltoaskstudentsquestionsthatwillguidethemtothearguments.

WhataretheBestArgumentsforEachSide?BestArgumentsforthePetitioner(TheSchoolBoard):

• ThesituationinTecumsehisnotverydifferentfromthesituationinVernonia.Schooladministratorsshouldnothavetowaituntiladrugproblembecomesanepidemic;anydruguseinschooliscauseforconcernandshouldbedealtwithinadministrator’sbestjudgment.

• ExpandingdrugtestingtoextracurricularactivitiesisonlyaverysmallexpansionoftheVernoniacase.Studentsinextracurricularactivitiesareofteninsituationsthatcouldbedangerousifthestudentisintoxicated,andareofteninsituationssuchastravelingorchanginguniformsinwhichtheyhavealesserexpectationofprivacy.

• Thedrugtestingproceduresarenotparticularlyinvasiveofstudents’privacy,particularlygivenhowcommondrugtestingisinadultemployment.

BestArgumentsfortheRespondent(LindsayEarls)

• ThesituationinTecumsehisentirelydifferentfromthesituationintheVernoniacase.Thereisnodrug“epidemic,”nostateofrebellioninschools,andwhateverdrugusetheremightbewasnotconfinedtoanidentifiablegroup,likeathletes.

• Studentsinextracurricularactivitiesdonothavethesameexposuretodangerandlesserexpectationofprivacyasathletes.

• Havingstudentstakenfromclasstoprovideurinesamplesunderteachers’supervisionisanunjustifiedinvasionofthestudents’privacy.

• Theschoolboard’sdrugtestingprogramislikelytobecounterproductive,asoneofthebestwaystopreventstudentsfromusingdrugsistokeeptheminvolvedinextracurricularactivities.

18

GlossaryACLU:TheAmericanCivilLibertiesUnionuseslitigation,legislationandcommunityeducationtodefendandpreservetheindividualrightsandlibertiesthatareguaranteedbytheU.S.Constitution.TheACLUoftenprovideslegalassistanceincaseswherecivillibertiesmaybeatrisk.CivilRights:TherightsgiventothepeoplebytheUnitedStatesConstitution,suchasfreedomofspeech,freedomofreligionandtherighttoprivacy.TheFourthAmendment:TheFourthAmendmentstatesthat:“Therightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,papers,andeffects,againstunreasonablesearchesandseizures,shallnotbeviolated....”Vernonia:VernoniaSchoolDistrictv.ActonwasdecidedbytheSupremeCourtin1995.TheCourtheldthatsuspicionlessdrug-testingofstudentathleteswasconstitutional.SpecialNeedsDoctrine:TheSupremeCourthasheldthatasearchwithoutprobablecausemaybeconstitutionalwhenspecialneedsmakethewarrantandprobable-causerequirementimpracticable.ProbableCause:Apoliceofficerhasprobablecausetoarrestsomeoneifheorshereasonablybelievesacrimehasbeencommittedandthatthepersontobearrestedcommittedthecrime.Apoliceofficerhasprobablecauseforasearchifheorshereasonablybelievesthataspecificitemrelatedtoacrimewillbefoundintheplacetobesearched.Warrant:Anordersignedbyajudgethatallowsanofficialtosearchsomeone’sproperty.Search:Whenpoliceenteranareawhichapersonreasonablyexpectstobeprivate(suchasahome)lookingforevidence,itislegallyconsideredasearch.Whenpolicelistentoprivatetelephoneconversations,suchaswithawiretap,itisalsoconsideredasearch.Sometimespolicemaydothingsoutsideahome,suchasuseheat-sensingequipmenttodetectthepresenceofheatlamps,thatarestillconsideredsearches.Thepolicecansearchaperson’spropertyifitisnotinaprivateplace(forexample,garbagebagsleftoutatthestreet)orifthatpersondoesnotdemonstratethatheorsheexpectsittobeprivate(telephoneconversationsthatotherscanhear).

19

BoardofEducationv.EarlsOpinion536U.S.822,122S.Ct.2559(2002)

JusticeTHOMASdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt. The cityof Tecumseh,Oklahoma, is a rural community locatedapproximately40miles southeastofOklahomaCity.TheSchoolDistrictadministersallTecumsehpublicschools.Inthefallof1998,theSchoolDistrictadoptedtheStudentActivitiesDrugTestingPolicy(Policy),whichrequiresallmiddleandhighschoolstudentstoconsenttodrugtestinginordertoparticipateinanyextracurricularactivity.Inpractice,thePolicyhasbeenappliedonlytocompetitiveextracurricularactivitiessanctionedbytheOklahomaSecondarySchoolsActivitiesAssociation,suchastheAcademicTeam,FutureFarmersofAmerica,FutureHomemakersofAmerica,band,choir,pompon,cheerleading,andathletics.UnderthePolicy,studentsarerequiredtotakeadrugtestbeforeparticipatinginanextracurricularactivity,mustsubmittorandomdrugtestingwhileparticipatinginthatactivity,andmustagreetobetestedatanytimeuponreasonablesuspicion.Theurinalysistestsaredesignedtodetectonlytheuseofillegaldrugs,includingamphetamines,marijuana,cocaine,opiates,andbarbiturates,notmedicalconditionsorthepresenceofauthorizedprescriptionmedications.

Atthetimeoftheirsuit,bothrespondentsattendedTecumsehHighSchool.RespondentLindsayEarlswasamemberof the showchoir, themarchingband, theAcademicTeam,and theNationalHonorSociety.RespondentDanielJamessoughttoparticipateintheAcademicTeam.

[BothEarlsandJamesfiledsuitagainsttheSchoolDistrictunder42U.S.C.§1983allegingthatthepolicyviolatedtheirFourthAmendmentrights.Oncross-motionforsummaryjudgment,theDistrictCourtupheldthepolicyfindingthattherewasahistoryofdrugabuseattheschoolthatpresented“legitimatecauseforconcern”evenifnotanepidemic.The10thCircuitCourtofAppealsreversedfindinginsufficientproofofaseriousdrugproblemthatwouldjustifythepolicy.TheSupremeCourtgrantedcertiorari.]

TheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionprotects“therightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,papers,andeffects,againstunreasonablesearchesandseizures.”Searchesbypublicschool officials, such as the collection of urine samples, implicate Fourth Amendment interests. We musttherefore review the School District’s Policy for “reasonableness,” which is the touchstone of theconstitutionalityofagovernmentalsearch.

Inthecriminalcontext,reasonablenessusuallyrequiresashowingofprobablecause.GiventhattheSchoolDistrict’sPolicyisnotinanywayrelatedtotheconductofcriminalinvestigations,respondentsdonotcontendthat theSchoolDistrict requiresprobablecausebefore testingstudents fordruguse. Respondentsinsteadarguethatdrugtestingmustbebasedatleastonsomelevelofindividualizedsuspicion.Itistruethatwe generally determine the reasonableness of a search by balancing the nature of the intrusion on theindividual’sprivacyagainstthepromotionoflegitimategovernmentalinterests.

Significantly, thisCourthaspreviouslyheld that “special needs” inhere in thepublic school context.While schoolchildren do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse, “FourthAmendment rights ... are different in public schools than elsewhere; the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry cannotdisregard the schools’ custodial and tutelary responsibility for children.”Vernonia. Inparticular, a findingofindividualizedsuspicionmaynotbenecessarywhenaschoolconductsdrugtesting.

InVernonia,thisCourtheldthatthesuspicionlessdrugtestingofathleteswasconstitutional.TheCourt,however,didnotsimplyauthorizeallschooldrugtesting,butratherconductedafact-specificbalancingoftheintrusion on the children’s Fourth Amendment rights against the promotion of legitimate governmentalinterests.ApplyingtheprinciplesofVernonia to thesomewhatdifferent factsof thiscase,weconcludethatTecumseh’sPolicyisalsoconstitutional.

Wefirstconsiderthenatureoftheprivacy interestallegedlycompromisedbythedrugtesting.As inVernonia,thecontextofthepublicschoolenvironmentservesasthebackdropfortheanalysisoftheprivacyinterestatstakeandthereasonablenessofthedrugtestingpolicyingeneral.

Astudent’sprivacyinterestislimitedinapublicschoolenvironmentwheretheStateisresponsibleformaintaining discipline, health, and safety. Schoolchildren are routinely required to submit to physical

20

examinationsandvaccinationsagainstdisease.Securingorderintheschoolenvironmentsometimesrequiresthatstudentsbesubjectedtogreatercontrolsthanthoseappropriateforadults.

Respondentsarguethatbecausechildrenparticipatinginnonathleticextracurricularactivitiesarenotsubjecttoregularphysicalsandcommunalundress,theyhaveastrongerexpectationofprivacythantheathletestestedinVernonia.Thisdistinction,however,wasnotessentialtoourdecisioninVernonia,whichdependedprimarilyupontheschool’scustodialresponsibilityandauthority.

In any event, students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities voluntarily subjectthemselvestomanyofthesameintrusionsontheirprivacyasdoathletes.Someoftheseclubsandactivitiesrequireoccasionaloff-campustravelandcommunalundress.Allofthemhavetheirownrulesandrequirementsforparticipatingstudentsthatdonotapplytothestudentbodyasawhole.WethereforeconcludethatthestudentsaffectedbythisPolicyhavealimitedexpectationofprivacy.

Next, we consider the character of the intrusion imposed by the Policy. Urination is “an excretoryfunction traditionally shielded by great privacy.” But the “degree of intrusion” on one’s privacy caused bycollectingaurinesample“dependsuponthemannerinwhichproductionoftheurinesampleismonitored.”Vernonia.

UnderthePolicy,afacultymonitorwaitsoutsidetheclosedrestroomstallforthestudenttoproduceasampleandmust“listenforthenormalsoundsofurinationinordertoguardagainsttamperedspecimensandtoinsureanaccuratechainofcustody.”Themonitorthenpoursthesampleintotwobottlesthataresealedandplacedintoamailingpouchalongwithaconsentformsignedbythestudent.ThisprocedureisvirtuallyidenticaltothatreviewedinVernonia,exceptthatitadditionallyprotectsprivacybyallowingmalestudentstoproducetheirsamplesbehindaclosedstall.GiventhatweconsideredthemethodofcollectioninVernoniaa“negligible”intrusion,themethodhereisevenlessproblematic.

Inaddition,thePolicyclearlyrequiresthatthetestresultsbekeptinconfidentialfilesseparatefromastudent’sothereducationalrecordsandreleasedtoschoolpersonnelonlyona“needtoknow”basis.Moreover,thetestresultsarenotturnedovertoanylawenforcementauthority.Nordothetestresultshereleadtotheimpositionofdisciplineorhaveanyacademicconsequences.Rather,theonlyconsequenceofafaileddrugtestistolimitthestudent’sprivilegeofparticipatinginextracurricularactivities.Giventheminimallyintrusivenatureofthesamplecollectionandthelimitedusestowhichthetestresultsareput,weconcludethattheinvasionofstudents’privacyisnotsignificant.

Finally, this Courtmust consider the nature and immediacy of the government’s concerns and theefficacy of the Policy in meeting them. This Court has already articulated in detail the importance of thegovernmentalconcerninpreventingdrugusebyschoolchildren.ThedrugabuseproblemamongourNation’syouthhashardlyabatedsinceVernoniawasdecidedin1995.Infact,evidencesuggeststhatithasonlygrownworse.Indeed,thenationwidedrugepidemicmakesthewaragainstdrugsapressingconcernineveryschool.

Additionally,theSchoolDistrict inthiscasehaspresentedspecificevidenceofdruguseatTecumsehschools.Teacherstestifiedthattheyhadseenstudentswhoappearedtobeundertheinfluenceofdrugsandthat theyheard students speakingopenlyaboutusingdrugs.Wedecline to second-guess the findingof theDistrictCourtthat“[v]iewingtheevidenceasawhole,itcannotbereasonablydisputedthatthe[SchoolDistrict]wasfacedwitha‘drugproblem’whenitadoptedthePolicy.”

Furthermore,thisCourthasnotrequiredaparticularizedorpervasivedrugproblembeforeallowingthegovernment to conduct suspicionless drug testing. The need to prevent and deter the substantial harm ofchildhooddruguseprovidesthenecessaryimmediacyforaschooltestingpolicy.Indeed,itwouldmakelittlesensetorequireaschooldistricttowaitforasubstantialportionofitsstudentstobeginusingdrugsbeforeitwasallowedtoinstituteadrugtestingprogramdesignedtodeterdruguse.

Giventhenationwideepidemicofdruguse,andtheevidenceofincreaseddruguseinTecumsehschools,it was entirely reasonable for the School District to enact this particular drug testing policy. As we cannotarticulateathresholdlevelofdrugusethatwouldsufficetojustifyadrugtestingprogramforschoolchildren,

21

werefusetofashionwhatwouldineffectbeaconstitutionalquantumofdrugusenecessarytoshowa“drugproblem.”

Respondentsalsoarguethatthetestingofnonathletesdoesnotimplicateanysafetyconcerns,andthatsafetyisa“crucialfactor”inapplyingthespecialneedsframework.Theycontendthattheremustbe“surpassingsafetyinterests,”inordertooverridetheusualprotectionsoftheFourthAmendment.Respondentsarecorrectthatsafetyfactorsintothespecialneedsanalysis,butthesafetyinterestfurtheredbydrugtestingisundoubtedlysubstantialforallchildren,athletesandnonathletesalike.Weknowalltoowellthatdrugusecarriesavarietyofhealthrisksforchildren,includingdeathfromoverdose.

WefindthattestingstudentswhoparticipateinextracurricularactivitiesisareasonablyeffectivemeansofaddressingtheSchoolDistrict’slegitimateconcernsinpreventing,deterring,anddetectingdruguse.WhileinVernoniatheremighthavebeenacloserfitbetweenthetestingofathletesandthetrialcourt’sfindingthatthedrugproblemwas“fueledbythe‘rolemodel’effectofathletes’druguse,”suchafindingwasnotessentialtotheholding.Vernoniadidnotrequiretheschooltotestthegroupofstudentsmostlikelytousedrugs,butratherconsideredtheconstitutionalityoftheprograminthecontextofthepublicschool’scustodialresponsibilities.EvaluatingthePolicyinthiscontext,weconcludethatthedrugtestingofTecumsehstudentswhoparticipateinextracurricularactivitieseffectivelyservestheSchoolDistrict’sinterestinprotectingthesafetyandhealthofitsstudents.

Within the limitsof theFourthAmendment, local schoolboardsmustassess thedesirabilityofdrugtestingschoolchildren.InupholdingtheconstitutionalityofthePolicy,weexpressnoopinionastoitswisdom.Rather,weholdonlythatTecumseh’sPolicyisareasonablemeansoffurtheringtheSchoolDistrict’simportantinterestinpreventinganddeterringdruguseamongitsschoolchildren.Accordingly,wereversethejudgmentoftheCourtofAppeals.

JusticeBREYER,concurring.

In my view, this program does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonablesearches and seizures.” I reach this conclusion primarily for the reasons given by the Court, but I wouldemphasizeseveralunderlyingconsiderations,whichIunderstandtobeconsistentwiththeCourt’sopinion.

Inrespecttotheschool’sneedforthedrugtestingprogram,Iwouldemphasizethefollowing:First,thedrug problem in our Nation’s schools is serious in terms of size, the kinds of drugs being used, and theconsequencesofthatusebothforourchildrenandtherestofus.Second,thegovernment’semphasisuponsupplysideinterdictionapparentlyhasnotreducedteenageuseinrecentyears.Third,publicschoolsystemsmustfindeffectivewaystodealwiththisproblem.Today’spublicexpectsitsschoolsnotsimplytoteachthefundamentals,but“toshouldertheburdenoffeedingstudentsbreakfastandlunch,offeringbeforeandafterschoolchildcareservices,andprovidingmedicalandpsychologicalservices,”allinaschoolenvironmentthatissafeandencourageslearning.Thelawitselfrecognizestheseresponsibilitieswiththephraseinlocoparentis--a phrase that draws its legal force primarily from the needs of younger students (whohere are necessarilygroupedtogetherwitholderhighschoolstudents)andwhichreflects,notthatachildoradolescentlacksaninterest in privacy, but that a child’s or adolescent’s school-relatedprivacy interest,when compared to theprivacyinterestsofanadult,hasdifferentdimensions.Apublicschoolsystemthatfailsadequatelytocarryoutitsresponsibilitiesmaywellseeparentssendtheirchildrentoprivateorparochialschoolinstead--withhelpfromtheState.

Fourth, the program at issue here seeks to discourage demand for drugs by changing the school’senvironmentinordertocombatthesinglemostimportantfactorleadingschoolchildrentotakedrugs,namely,peer pressure. It offers the adolescent a nonthreatening reason to decline his friend’s drug use invitations,namely,thathe intendstoplaybaseball,participate indebate, jointheband,orengage inanyoneofhalfadozenuseful,interesting,andimportantactivities.

Inrespecttotheprivacy-relatedburdenthatthedrugtestingprogramimposesuponstudents,Iwouldemphasize the following: First, not everyonewould agreewith this Court’s characterizationof theprivacy-relatedsignificanceofurinesamplingas“negligible.”Somefindtheprocedurenomoreintrusivethanaroutine

22

medicalexamination,butothersareseriouslyembarrassedbytheneedtoprovideaurinesamplewithsomeonelistening“outsidetheclosedrestroomstall.”Whentryingtoresolvethiskindofclosequestioninvolvingtheinterpretationofconstitutionalvalues,Ibelieveitimportantthattheschoolboardprovidedanopportunityfortheairingofthesedifferencesatpublicmeetingsdesignedtogivetheentirecommunity“theopportunitytobeable toparticipate” indeveloping thedrugpolicy. Theboardused thisdemocratic,participatoryprocess touncoverandtoresolvedifferences,givingweighttothefactthattheprocess,inthisinstance,revealedlittle,ifany,objectiontotheproposedtestingprogram.

Second,thetestingprogramavoidssubjectingtheentireschooltotesting.Anditpreservesanoptionforaconscientiousobjector.Hecanrefusetestingwhilepayingaprice(nonparticipation)thatisserious,butlessseverethanexpulsionfromtheschool.

Icannotknowwhethertheschool’sdrugtestingprogramwillwork.But,inmyview,theConstitutiondoesnotprohibittheeffort.EmphasizingtheconsiderationsIhavementioned,alongwithotherstowhichtheCourtrefers,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 Courtstresses,Tecumsehstudentsparticipatingincompetitiveextracurricularactivitiesotherthanathleticssharetworelevant characteristicswith the athletes ofVernonia. First, both groups attend public schools. Concern forstudenthealthandsafetyisbasictotheschool’scaretaking,anditisundeniablethat“drugusecarriesavarietyofhealthrisksforchildren,includingdeathfromoverdose.”

Thoserisks,however,arepresentforallschoolchildren.Vernoniacannotbereadtoendorseinvasiveandsuspicionlessdrugtestingofallstudentsuponanyevidenceofdruguse,solelybecausedrugsjeopardizethelifeandhealthofthosewhousethem.Manychildren,likemanyadults,engageindangerousactivitiesontheirowntime;thatthechildrenareenrolledinschoolscarcelyallowsgovernmenttomonitorallsuchactivities.Ifastudenthasareasonablesubjectiveexpectationofprivacyinthepersonalitemsshebringstoschool,surelyshehasasimilarexpectationregardingthechemicalcompositionofherurine.HadtheVernoniaCourtagreedthatpublicschoolattendance,inandofitself,permittedtheStatetotesteachstudent’sbloodorurinefordrugs,theopinioninVernoniacouldhavesavedmanywords.

ThesecondcommonalitytowhichtheCourtpoints is thevoluntarycharacterofboth interscholasticathleticsandothercompetitiveextracurricularactivities.

Thecomparisonisenlightening.Whileextracurricularactivitiesare“voluntary”inthesensethattheyarenotrequiredforgraduation,theyarepartoftheschool’seducationalprogram;forthatreason,thepetitioner(hereinafterSchoolDistrict)isjustifiedinexpendingpublicresourcestomakethemavailable.Participationinsuchactivitiesisakeycomponentofschoollife,essentialinrealityforstudentsapplyingtocollege,and,forallparticipants, a significant contributor to the breadth and quality of the educational experience. Students“volunteer”forextracurricularpursuitsinthesamewaytheymightvolunteerforhonorsclasses:Theysubjectthemselvestoadditionalrequirements,buttheydosoinordertotakefulladvantageoftheeducationofferedthem.

Voluntary participation in athletics has a distinctly different dimension: Schools regulate studentathletes discretely because competitive school sports by their nature require communal undress and,moreimportant,exposestudentstophysicalrisksthatschoolshaveadutytomitigate.Fortheveryreasonthatschoolscannotofferaprogramofcompetitiveathleticswithoutintimatelyaffectingtheprivacyofstudents,Vernoniareasonably analogized school athletes to “adultswho choose toparticipate in a closely regulated industry.”Industries fall within the closely regulated category when the nature of their activities requires substantialgovernmentoversight.Interscholasticathleticssimilarlyrequireclosesafetyandhealthregulation;aschool’schoir,band,andacademicteamdonot.

23

On“occasionalout-of-towntrips,”studentslikeLindsayEarls“mustsleeptogetherincommunalsettingsandusecommunalbathrooms.”Butthosesituationsarehardlyequivalenttotheroutinecommunalundressassociatedwith athletics; the School District itself admits thatwhen such trips occur, “public-like restroomfacilities,” which presumably include enclosed stalls, are ordinarily available for changing, and that “moremodeststudents”findotherwaystomaintaintheirprivacy.

The“natureandimmediacyofthegovernmentalconcern”facedbytheVernoniaSchoolDistrictdwarfedthatconfrontingTecumsehadministrators.Vernoniainitiateditsdrugtestingpolicyinresponsetoanalarmingsituation.Tecumseh,bycontrast,repeatedlyreportedtotheFederalGovernmentduringtheperiodleadingupto the adoption of the policy that “types of drugs [other than alcohol and tobacco] including controlleddangeroussubstances,arepresent[intheschools]buthavenotidentifiedthemselvesasmajorproblemsatthistime.”

Not only did the Vernonia and Tecumseh districts confront drug problems of distinctly differentmagnitudes, they also chose different solutions: Vernonia limited its policy to athletes; Tecumsehindiscriminatelysubjectedtotestingallparticipantsincompetitiveextracurricularactivities.

Atthemargins,ofcourse,nopolicyofrandomdrugtestingisperfectlytailoredtotheharmsitseekstoaddress.TheSchoolDistrictcitesthedangersfacedbymembersoftheband,whomust“performextremelypreciseroutineswithheavyequipmentandinstruments incloseproximitytootherstudents,”andbyFutureFarmersofAmerica,who“arerequiredtoindividuallycontrolandrestrainanimalsaslargeas1500pounds.”Notwithstanding nightmarish images of out-of-control flatware, livestock run amok, and colliding tubasdisturbingthepeaceandquietofTecumseh,thegreatmajorityofstudentstheSchoolDistrictseekstotestintruthareengagedinactivitiesthatarenotsafetysensitivetoanunusualdegree.Thereisadifferencebetweenimperfecttailoringandnotailoringatall.

TheVernoniadistrict,insum,hadtwogoodreasonsfortestingathletes:Sportsteammembersfacedspecialhealthrisksandthey“weretheleadersofthedrugculture.”Nosimilarreason,andnoothertenablejustification, explains Tecumseh’s decision to target for testing all participants in every competitiveextracurricularactivity.

Nationwide,studentswhoparticipateinextracurricularactivitiesaresignificantlylesslikelytodevelopsubstanceabuseproblemsthanaretheirless-involvedpeers.Evenifstudentsmightbedeterredfromdruguseinordertopreservetheirextracurriculareligibility,itisatleastaslikelythatotherstudentsmightforgotheirextracurricular involvement inorder to avoiddetectionof their druguse. Tecumseh’spolicy thus falls shortdoublyifdeterrenceisitsaim:Itinvadestheprivacyofstudentswhoneeddeterrenceleast,andriskssteeringstudentsatgreatestriskforsubstanceabuseawayfromextracurricularinvolvementthatpotentiallymaypalliatedrugproblems.

Tosummarize,thiscaseresemblesVernoniaonlyinthattheSchoolDistrictsinbothcasesconditionedengagement in activities outside the obligatory curriculumon random subjection to urinalysis. The definingcharacteristicsof the twoprograms,however,areentirelydissimilar. TheVernoniadistrict sought to testasubpopulationofstudentsdistinguishedbytheirreducedexpectationofprivacy,theirspecialsusceptibilitytodrug-related injury,andtheirheavy involvementwithdruguse. TheTecumsehdistrictseekstotestamuchlargerpopulationassociatedwithnoneofthesefactors.Itdoesso,moreover,withoutcarefullysafeguardingstudentconfidentialityandwithoutregardtotheprogram’suntowardeffects.AprogramsosweepingisnotshelteredbyVernonia;itsunreasonablereachrendersitimpermissibleundertheFourthAmendment.Forthereasons stated, I would affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit declaring the testing policy at issueunconstitutional.

NOTE:Thisopinionhasbeeneditedforusebystudentsandteachers.Foreaseofreading,noindicationhasbeenmadeofdeletedmaterialandcasecitations.Anylegalorscholarlyuseofthiscaseshouldrefertothefullopinion.