Board Of Education V Earls

2002 Usa Supreme Court case

Board of Education v. Earls
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 19, 2002 Decided June 27, 2002
Full instance name	Lath of Pedagogy of Contained School District of Pottawatomie Canton, et al. v. Earls, et al.
Citations	536 U.S. 822 (more than) 122 S. Ct. 2559; 153 L. Ed. 2nd 735
Holding
Coercive drug testing imposed by school commune upon students who participate in extracurricular activities does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Court membership
Master Justice William Rehnquist Acquaintance Justices John P. Stevens· Sandra Twenty-four hour period O'Connor Antonin Scalia· Anthony Kennedy David Souter· Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg· Stephen Breyer
Instance opinions
Majority	Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer
Concurrence	Breyer
Dissent	O'Connor, joined by Souter
Dissent	Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Souter
Laws applied
U.Southward. Const. amend. IV

Board of Education five. Earls , 536 U.S. 822 (2002), was a U.s.a. Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of mandatory drug testing by public schools of students participating in extracurricular activities. The legal challenge to the practice was brought by two students, Lindsay Earls and Daniel James, and their families confronting the schoolhouse board of Tecumseh, Oklahoma, alleging that their policy requiring students to consent to random urinalysis testing for drug use violated the Fourth Subpoena to the United states Constitution.

Groundwork [edit]

The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy adopted by the Tecumseh, Oklahoma School District requires all centre and loftier school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity. Two Tecumseh High Schoolhouse students and their parents brought arrange, alleging that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment. The District Court granted the Schoolhouse District summary judgment. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the policy violated the Fourth Amendment. The appellate court concluded that before imposing a suspicionless drug-testing programme, a schoolhouse should demonstrate some identifiable drug abuse trouble among a sufficient number of those tested, such that testing that group volition really redress its drug problem, which the School District failed to demonstrate.

Opinion of the Court [edit]

In a bulk opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that students in extracurricular activities had a macerated expectation of privacy, and that the policy furthered an of import interest of the school in preventing drug utilize among students. This rationale was based on the precedent Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995), which allowed drug testing for athletes. Justice Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the Court'south judgment

References [edit]

External links [edit]

Text of Board of Education 5. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) is available from:CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral statement audio)