842 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.
NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. v. EARLS Ginsburg, J., dissenting
stigmatized in the minds of others. See Belsky, Random vs. Suspicion-Based Drug Testing in the Public Schools—A Surprising Civil Liberties Dilemma, 27 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 1, 20-21 (forthcoming 2002) (listing court-approved factors justifying suspicion-based drug testing, including tiredness, overactivity, quietness, boisterousness, sloppiness, excessive meticulousness, and tardiness). If so, direct application of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures" will further that Amendment's liberty-protecting objectives at least to the same extent as application of the mediating "individualized suspicion" test, where, as here, the testing program is neither criminal nor disciplinary in nature.
* * *
I cannot know whether the school's drug testing program will work. But, in my view, the Constitution does not prohibit the effort. Emphasizing the considerations I have mentioned, along with others to which the Court refers, I conclude that the school's drug testing program, constitutionally speaking, is not "unreasonable." And I join the Court's opinion.
Justice O'Connor, with whom Justice Souter joins, dissenting.
I dissented in Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646 (1995), and continue to believe that case was wrongly decided. Because Vernonia is now this Court's precedent, and because I agree that petitioners' program fails even under the balancing approach adopted in that case, I join Justice Ginsburg's dissent.
Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Souter join, dissenting.
Seven years ago, in Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646 (1995), this Court determined that a schoolPage: Index Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: October 4, 2007