1 / 12

Board of Education v. Earls, No. 01-332(2002) Supreme Court Case Drug Testing Student Competitors

Board of Education v. Earls, No. 01-332(2002) Supreme Court Case Drug Testing Student Competitors. By: Drew Jackson. Background Information On the Case.

balin
Download Presentation

Board of Education v. Earls, No. 01-332(2002) Supreme Court Case Drug Testing Student Competitors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Board of Education v. Earls, No. 01-332(2002)Supreme Court CaseDrug Testing Student Competitors By: Drew Jackson

  2. Background Information On the Case Ms. Earls thought that it was wrong for the Tecumseh School System to drug test any school students that were taking their time to participate in the schools’ extracurricular activities. This is where the Supreme Court Case began to form.

  3. Court of Appeals • The determination to prove her point led Ms. Earls to take this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver. • Ms. Earls still stuck with her general argument in this case, but also brought up the Forth Amendment.

  4. Court of Appeals Cont. • Ms. Earls’ argued that the Fourth Amendment was being violated because she saw this drug testing as An unreasonable search and seizure. • Ms. Earl was successful in presenting her case. • This is what led to her success and eventually winning this case, in the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

  5. Board of Education v. Earls, No. 01-332(2002) This case was still far from over the school system was not ready to give into this decision by the Court of Appeals.

  6. Board of Education v. Earls, No. 01-332(2002) Board of Education Earls The Board of Education formed their argument that they wanted to randomly drug test students to help protect them and keep them safe on the travels of the school’s teams. Ms. Earls still held with her argument that she had formed earlier in the case that she presented in the Court of appeals.

  7. Majority Decision • The Judges in the majority were: Rehnquis, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, and Thomas. • Judge Thomas wrote the majority decision. • There was not to be any hand selecting for these drug tests and they were to all Berandom as well as private. • They saw that this was very much like the schools having random drug searches, and this was lawful.

  8. Dissenting Decision • The four Judges in the dissention were: Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg. • Ginsburg also wrote the dissenting opinion. • The dissention was based on the fact the drug testing was random, and that a random drug test would not be affecting every student. This was not seen as fair because they would not treat all the students the same. They said they were drug testing too many students and too few at the same time.

  9. The Final Vote Majority v. Dissention The trial ended with a vote of five to four in favor of randomly drug testing the student competitors.

  10. Conclusion of the Case In the end of this case the Board of Education won in 2002. This led to the Tecumseh School System being able to randomly drug test all of their student competitors.

  11. The Effects of the Case The conclusion of this case allowed the random drug testing of student competitors, but now that it has gone through the Supreme Court, schools around the nation can also take these precautions to help protect their student body.

  12. Bibliography Greenhouse, Linda. "THE SUPREME COURT: DRUG TESTS; Justices Allow Schools Wider Use Of Random Drug Tests for Pupils." The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 June 2002. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. "BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TECUMSEH PUBLIC SCHOOL." 2001. Web. 17 Nov. 2013. "BOARD OF EDUCATION v. EARLS." Board of Education v. Earls. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. "Board of Education v. Earls No. 01-332(2002)." 2002. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

More Related