In The
Supreme Court of the United States
BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY.
v.
EARLS
Decided June 27, 2002
Justice O’Connor, Dissenting
Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002), was a United States 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 against the school board of Tecumseh, Oklahoma, alleging that their policy requiring students to consent to random urinalysis testing for drug use violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
| Topic: Privacy* | Court vote: 5–4 | |
Click any Justice for detail Joining O'Connor opinion:  Justice SOUTER | ||
| Holding: “Coercive drug testing imposed by school district upon students who participate in extracurricular activities does not violate the Fourth Amendment.” | ||
| Citation: 536 U.S. 822 | Docket: 01–332 | Audio: Listen to this case's oral arguments at Oyez |
* As categorized by the Washington University Law Supreme Court Database
DISCLAIMER: Only United States Reports are legally valid sources for Supreme Court opinions. The text below is provided for ease of access only. If you need to cite the exact text of this opinion or if you would like to view the opinions of the other Justices in this case, please view the original United States Report at the Library of Congress or Justia. The Sandra Day O'Connor Institute does not in any way represent, warrant, or guarantee that the text below is accurate."
Opinion
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER joins, dissenting.
I dissented in Vernonia School Dist. J,7J 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.
Header photo: United States Supreme Court. Credit: Patrick McKay / Flickr - CC.