536 U.S. 822 (2002)
In the fall of 1998, the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, which administers all public schools in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, adopted the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy.1
The Policy requires every middle and high school student who wishes to participate in any competitive extracurricular activity sanctioned by the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association to consent to urinalysis testing before joining the activity, at random times while participating, and at any time upon reasonable suspicion. The tests screen only for illegal drugs including amphetamines, marijuana, cocaine, opiates, and barbiturates.2
At the time suit was filed, respondent Lindsay Earls was a member of the show choir, marching band, Academic Team, and National Honor Society at Tecumseh High School, while respondent Daniel James sought to participate in the Academic Team. Together with their parents, Earls and James filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.3
They challenged the Policy on its face and as applied to their activities.4
They alleged that the Policy violates the Fourth Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.5 The District Court granted summary judgment to the School District after finding a history of drug abuse in the schools dating back to 1970 that presented legitimate cause for concern.6 The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that a school must demonstrate an identifiable drug abuse problem among a sufficient number of those subject to testing before imposing a suspicionless program.7 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.8
Teachers testified that they had seen students who appeared to be under the influence of drugs and that they had heard students speaking openly about using drugs.9 A drug dog found marijuana cigarettes near the school parking lot.10 Police officers once found drugs or drug paraphernalia in a car driven by a Future Farmers of America member.11 The school board president reported that people in the community were calling the board to discuss the "drug situation."12
Whether the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy requiring urinalysis testing of students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities violates the Fourth Amendment?13
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures.14 In the public school context special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement make the warrant and probable-cause requirements impracticable.15 A suspicionless drug testing policy is constitutional if after balancing the limited privacy interest of students in the school setting, the minimally intrusive character of the testing procedure with confidential results and no academic consequences, and the school's important interest in preventing drug use supported by evidence of a drug problem, the policy reasonably serves the school's interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students.16
No. The Policy does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The students affected by the Policy have a limited expectation of privacy because the context of the public school environment and their voluntary participation in competitive extracurricular activities subject them to additional rules and regulations.17
The character of the intrusion is not significant because the urinalysis is monitored in a manner that allows production behind a closed stall.18 The results are kept confidential and released only on a need to know basis.19
The only consequence is limitation on participation in extracurricular activities rather than academic or disciplinary sanctions.20 The nature and immediacy of the government's concerns are substantial given the nationwide drug epidemic and the specific evidence of drug use at Tecumseh schools including teacher observations, a drug dog finding marijuana, and community reports.21 This makes the Policy a reasonably effective means of addressing the School District's interest in preventing drug use among students.22
The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.23
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Breyer concurred in the judgment reversing the Tenth Circuit.24 He emphasized the serious national drug problem in schools.25 He noted the failure of supply side interdiction efforts.26
He highlighted the schools' responsibilities in loco parentis.27 He stressed the program's focus on reducing demand by giving students a nonthreatening reason to resist peer pressure through participation in activities.28 He also noted the democratic participatory process used to adopt the policy with little community objection.29
He pointed out the option for students to avoid testing by declining to participate in activities.30 He concluded that the Constitution does not prohibit the effort.31
Joined by Justice Souter
Justice O'Connor filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Souter.32 She dissented in Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton and continued to believe that case was wrongly decided.33
She agreed that the petitioners' program fails even under the balancing approach adopted in Vernonia.34 In her view, the Tecumseh policy did not satisfy the requirements set forth in that case for suspicionless drug testing in schools, leading her to join the dissent concluding that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment.
Joined by Justice Stevens, Justice O'connor, And Justice Souter
Justice Ginsburg dissented joined by Justices Stevens, O'Connor, and Justice Souter.35 She argued that the circumstances are dispositively different from Vernonia because the drug problem in Tecumseh was repeatedly described by the superintendent as not major.36 She noted the policy targets students in nonathletic activities who face no special safety risks or leadership role in a drug culture.
She pointed out that the confidentiality protections were not adequately safeguarded as shown by the choir teacher viewing and leaving prescription lists where others could see them.37 She concluded the policy is not well tailored to the harms since it tests students least likely to be at risk while potentially steering at risk students away from beneficial extracurricular involvement.38