Vernonia School District vs. Acton (1995)Diana Tran and Chelsea ChavesPeriod 3December 19, 2014

Vs.

Background of the Case

• Location: Vernonia, Oregon• James Acton, a seventh grader, that tried out for the

football team was not able to join the team because his parents had refused to sign agreement to allow the school to do a drug test on him because it was against his rights

• Around this time their District Court declared that athletes were “leaders of drug culture”

• Therefor the district came up with the school policy that all sports and extracurricular activities were subject to take a urinary drug test that allowed for participation

Background cont.• Vernonia School District had held a parent input night to

discuss the Student Athlete Policy- All parents that were present, had a unanimous approval

• The Athlete Policy - “Its expressed purpose is to prevent student athletes from using drugs to protect their health and safety and provide drug users with assistance programs.”

Amendments

• 4th Amendment• The reasonableness of a search is judged by

"balancing the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” • For the case of athletes in high school, they are

under supervision by their state during all school hours • The privacy interests compromised by urine samples

are negligible since collecting them are similar to public restrooms, and the results are viewed only by certain authorities.

Amendments cont.• 4th Amendment• The biggest concern with the government over the safety

of minors under their supervision overrides the minimal, if any, intrusion in student-athletes' privacy.

• The Actons had charged that the policy of requiring random urine samples of the high school athletes was not reasonable since it invades the bodies of the young athletes, including those who are not suspected for drug use.

• The Supreme Court compared other court decisions involving the Fourth Amendment

• 14th Amendment

Opinion of the Majority• The majority of justices agreed that the drug testing policy was

reasonable therefor siding with the Vernonia School District• The Court believed that any drug related problem that is

highly influenced by the 'role model' effect of athletes' drug use by making sure that their athletes do not use drugs should be fixed

• Acton argued that a less intrusive policy would require for individual suspicion before they were to drug test an athlete, but the Court saw that the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness did not require the use of the least intrusive means to achieve what they were aiming for

• Therefor, the policy was a reasonable search due to the Fourth Amendment.

Opinion of the Minority• Justice O’Connor, Justice Stevens and Justice Souter

• Wrote a separate dissenting opinion • Notes that since 1925, the Supreme Court ruled that

suspicionless (any court that has ruled that any search done without suspicion was unreasonable) searches were unreasonable and a violation of the 4th Amendment.

• There was no testimony of any drug problems at Washington Grade School, where Acton was enrolled

• O’Connor concluded that it would be more reasonable for the Vernonia School District to drug test kids that had been disrupting class

• O’Connor saw the majority’s opinion to “sweeps too broadly” in the allowing of suspicionless drug testing of all student athletes

Who won?

• 6 votes for Vernonia School District• 3 vote(s) against• “Supreme Court said that public school officials could

have a drug testing program if the school could show that there was a drug problem among the students.”

Chief Justice of the CourtWilliam H. Rehnquist• Had been one of the most

Conservative members in the Supreme Court,

• Became court's Chief Justice when he succeeded Justice Warren Burger

• By 2002, at 77 years old, Rehnquist served on the Court for over 30 years.

Rehnquist’s decisions• His remarkable decision was with the case National League of

Cities v. Usery (1976).• The issue was over if the federal minimum-wage law applies to

all state and local government employees. And in a before case the majority decided in favor of the federal government.

• But Rehnquist alone had dissented, and had argued against numerous of years of opinions that the wage law violated state sovereignty.

Impact

• The ruling of the case represents another example of the Court interpreting the Fourth Amendment so as to enable authorities to act expeditiously against the use of and trafficking in illegal drugs.

• Due to the state’s want in eliminating drug use among young minors, and with the status of both school authorities and athletes, the Court ruled that random drug testing did not violate the constitutionally guaranteed privacy of participants in athletic programs.

Bibliography• EASTERBROOK, FRANK H. "William H. Rehnquist." Encyclopedia of the American

Constitution. Gale, 2000. Biography in Context. Web. 5 Jan. 2015.• "FindLaw | Cases and Codes." FindLaw | Cases and Codes. N.p., n.d. Web. 19

Dec. 2014. • Persico, Deborah A. Vernonia School District v. Acton: Drug Testing in Schools.

Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow, 1999. Print. • Raskin, Jamin B. "Chapter 5 Section: The Fourth Amendment: Searching the

Student Body." We the Students: Supreme Court Cases for and about Students. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. 139-40. Print.

• "Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton." Great American Court Cases. Ed. Mark Mikula. Vol. 2: Criminal Justice. Detroit: Gale, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Dec. 2014.

Pictures:• James Acton. Digital image. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.• Vernonia High School. Digital image. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.• William Rehnquist. Digital image. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Jan. 2015.