User:LegalMatt/Board of Education v. Earls

Since the Court's decision in ''Board of Education v. Earls'', the Supreme Court's expansion of the "special needs" doctrine has been criticized for its broad scope in applying to students regardless of whether they are likely to use drugs.''See'' Marcus Raymond, Note, ''Drug Testing Those Crazy Chess Club Kids: The Supreme Court Turns Away from the One Clear Path in the Maze of “Special Needs” Jurisprudence in Board of Education v. Earls,'' 22 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 559 (2003); ''see also'' Ralph D. Mawdsley, ''Random Drug Testing for Extracurricular Activities: Has the Supreme Court Opened Pandora's Box for Public Schools?,'' 2003 BYU Educ. & L. J. 587.

Since the Court's decision in ''Board of Education v. Earls'', the Supreme Court's expansion of the "special needs" doctrine has been criticized for its broad scope in applying to students regardless of whether they are likely to use drugs.''See'' Marcus Raymond, Note, ''Drug Testing Those Crazy Chess Club Kids: The Supreme Court Turns Away from the One Clear Path in the Maze of “Special Needs” Jurisprudence in Board of Education v. Earls,'' 22 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 559 (2003); ''see also'' Ralph D. Mawdsley, ''Random Drug Testing for Extracurricular Activities: Has the Supreme Court Opened Pandora's Box for Public Schools?,'' 2003 BYU Educ. & L. J. 587.

As one commentator argues, the decision permits testing without requiring evidence of a specific drug issue and therefore "inevitably leads to the allowance of mandatory drug tests for all high school students." 22 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 559, 560 (2003). Although the Court has yet to answer that question, this shift raises broader questions about whether the reasoning in ''Earls'' could justify suspicionless testing beyond students who voluntarily participate in sports or extracurricular activities. As another commentator has found, Earls both opened the door to allow schools to engage in broader suspicionless drug testing and creates a lower floor of evidence needed to justify the testing.2003 BYU Educ. & L. J. 587, 599, 601.

As one commentator argues, the decision permits testing without requiring evidence of a specific drug issue and therefore "inevitably leads to the allowance of mandatory drug tests for all high school students." 22 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 559, 560 (2003). Although the Court has yet to answer that question, this shift raises broader questions about whether the reasoning in ''Earls'' could justify suspicionless testing beyond students who voluntarily participate in sports or extracurricular activities. As another commentator has found, Earls both opened the door to allow schools to engage in broader suspicionless drug testing and creates a lower floor of evidence needed to justify the testing.2003 BYU Educ. & L. J. 587, 599, 601. However, [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio]] drew a line in 2015, holding a charter school policy did violate the Fourth Amendment where the policy expelled students who did not submit to drug testing when there was rumors about them using drugs.68 Am Jur 2d Searches and Seizures § 32 Drug Testing (citing ''Cummerlander v. Patriot Preparatory Acad. Inc.'', 86 F. Supp. 3d 808 (S.D. Ohio 2015).

At the same time, some scholars have questioned whether random drug-testing policies are effective. They argue that drug testing students is "expensive, tempting to circumvent, and incomplete as it fails to identify many popular prescription drugs."20 UC Davis J. Juv. L. & Pol’y 191, 211. One alternative is for schools to use community and family-focused intervention.20 UC Davis J. Juv. L. & Pol’y 191, 210. This program begins in middle school and focuses on using parents and educators to teach healthy solutions and discuss problems with students as peers.

At the same time, some scholars have questioned whether random drug-testing policies are effective. They argue that drug testing students is "expensive, tempting to circumvent, and incomplete as it fails to identify many popular prescription drugs."20 UC Davis J. Juv. L. & Pol’y 191, 211. One alternative is for schools to use community and family-focused intervention.20 UC Davis J. Juv. L. & Pol’y 191, 210. This program begins in middle school and focuses on using parents and educators to teach healthy solutions and discuss problems with students as peers.