Supreme Court
Montrel Tennessee
Supreme Court Paper
12/3/2012
“Drug Testing in Public Schools”
I chose to analyze the question “If public schools should drug test in order for students to be able to participate in extracurricular activities?” For this analyzation, I will refer to the Supreme Court cases of Board of Education V. Earls and Vernonia School District 47J V. Acton. Key legal issues that will be addressed in this essay are the power of public officials, privacy of the students,constitutionality of the rulings, along with other supporting facts of the case.
One of the most monumental cases,that dealt with drug testing the public school youth was Vernonia School District 47J V. Acton, in 1995. Understanding that the Vernonia case is 17 years in the past, I will only refer to this in my analysis of the facts when relevant to the Board of Education V. Earls case. Vernonia School District 47J V. Acton is the precedent case for Board of Education V. Earls and for my analysis. The Vernonia School district was seeing escalated drug use among its student population. The school district was particularly concerned with the fact that student athletes were leaders of the drug culture. Parents gave their unanimous approval to a proposed urinalysis drug testing policy for student athletes, the district 's school board implemented the policy, under which all students wishing to participate in interscholastic athletics had to sign a form consenting to the testing and had to obtain their parents ' written consent to the testing, athletes were tested at the beginning of the season for their sport, and random testing of 10 percent of the athletes was done weekly during the season. A seventh grade student was denied participation in the district 's football program because the student and his parents refused to sign the testing consent forms (1). A parents challenged the schools’ testing program by filing a suit saying that it violated their childs 4th Amendment right. The case
Supreme Court Paper
12/3/2012
“Drug Testing in Public Schools”
I chose to analyze the question “If public schools should drug test in order for students to be able to participate in extracurricular activities?” For this analyzation, I will refer to the Supreme Court cases of Board of Education V. Earls and Vernonia School District 47J V. Acton. Key legal issues that will be addressed in this essay are the power of public officials, privacy of the students,constitutionality of the rulings, along with other supporting facts of the case.
One of the most monumental cases,that dealt with drug testing the public school youth was Vernonia School District 47J V. Acton, in 1995. Understanding that the Vernonia case is 17 years in the past, I will only refer to this in my analysis of the facts when relevant to the Board of Education V. Earls case. Vernonia School District 47J V. Acton is the precedent case for Board of Education V. Earls and for my analysis. The Vernonia School district was seeing escalated drug use among its student population. The school district was particularly concerned with the fact that student athletes were leaders of the drug culture. Parents gave their unanimous approval to a proposed urinalysis drug testing policy for student athletes, the district 's school board implemented the policy, under which all students wishing to participate in interscholastic athletics had to sign a form consenting to the testing and had to obtain their parents ' written consent to the testing, athletes were tested at the beginning of the season for their sport, and random testing of 10 percent of the athletes was done weekly during the season. A seventh grade student was denied participation in the district 's football program because the student and his parents refused to sign the testing consent forms (1). A parents challenged the schools’ testing program by filing a suit saying that it violated their childs 4th Amendment right. The case
References: 515 U.S. 646; 115 S. Ct. 2386; 132 L. Ed. 2d 564; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 4275; 63 U.S.L.W. 4653; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4846; 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 229. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/12/03. 483 U.S. 868; 107 S. Ct. 3164; 97 L. Ed. 2d 709; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2897; 55 U.S.L.W. 5156. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/12/03. Mawdsley, R. D. (2003). RANDOM DRUG TESTING FOR EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES: HAS THE SUPREME COURT OPENED PANDORA 'S BOX FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS?. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (2), 587.