Transcript Board of Education v. Earls (2002)

Emily Newcomb
Defendant: Tecumseh, Oklahoma Board of Education
Plaintiffs: Lindsey Earls and Daniel James
“In the fall of 1998, the School District adopted the
Student Activities Drug Testing Policy, which requires all
middle and high school students to consent to drug
testing in order to participate in any extracurricular
activity.”
The Policy stated that the students had to take a drug
test before participating in the activity, take random
tests while participating, and must agree to be tested if
there is any individualized suspicion.
Earls and James both stated that drug testing students
violated the Fourth Amendment (“the right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures”)
They also argued that the School District had no reason
to drug test the students and that testing would not bring
any benefit to the students or school.
• First presented to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma
• The hearing rejected Earls and James’s claim and left
final decision to the School District
• The Court stated that the Policy reduced the number of
drug users in the schools and that the School District
did have a reasonable cause to test the students
• The United States Court of Appeals stated that the
Policy did violate the Fourth Amendment
• The court declared that the Tecumseh School District
failed to show a recurring drug problem amongst the
students that competed in extracurricular activities.
• The District Courts decision was reversed
• In order for the Supreme Court to make a decision
they had they had to review three factors:
• Privacy
• Whether the Policy was an intrusion to ones privacy
• Whether or not the School District was in major need
of drug testing their students
• After the case was presented to the Court, there was a
5-4 majority vote
• The Supreme Court declared that the Policy was
constitutional and that Tecumseh School District could
proceed with their interest in drug testing the students
who competed in extracurricular activities.
Although many parents of the students were upset about
the decision, it did begin to reduce the number of
students that participated in illegal drug activity.
• "BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF
POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS." BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS. N.p., 27 June
2002. Web. 21 Nov. 2014. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01332.ZO.html>.
• "BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 92 OF
POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY Et Al. v. EARLS Et Al." New York Times. N.p., 2003.
Web. 23 Nov. 2014.
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol
=01-332&friend=nytimes>.
• "Board of Education v Earls." Board of Education v Earls. N.p., n.d. Web. 21
Nov. 2014.
<http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/earls.html>.
• "BOARD OF EDUCATION v. EARLS." Board of Education v. Earls. N.p., n.d.
Web. 23 Nov. 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/20002009/2001/2001_01_332>.
• "Fourth Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov.
2014. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment>.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh,_Oklahoma
• http://photo.pds.org:5012/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqr
esrre2009060503