Supreme Court Case: Earl Versus The Board Of Education

Facts of the Case:
Earl versus the Board of Education was a Supreme Court case in 2002 where high school students and their parents disliked the action of The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy taking place in an Oklahoma School District. This policy required all middle and high school students who wanted to participate in any extracurricular activity like athletics, to take a mandatory urinary test for drugs before taking part in that activity. However, in this situation in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, the testing was only done for athletics. This was done by the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA). Specifically two Tecumseh High School students and their parents complained and brought suit, they believed this practice violated

Earls, a member of the school marching band and choir. And Daniel J., who yearned to be on the academic team. They argued for the removal of the mandatory drug tests because it infringes on their rights stated in the 14th amendment. In addition, they argued that “...the school district failed to refer to a special need for testing students… in extracurricular activities. Also, that the policy “…did not address a proven drug problem at the school.”
The US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma upheld that the policy was in fact constitutional based on the existence of a “special need, indicated by accounts of drug abuse since 1970.” The verdict would be reversed in the appellate court. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals reaffirming that like in the district court, the policy was in fact, constitutional.
As for the defendants, or School Board, they would argue their cases in the oral trail in the Supreme Court. Linda M. Meoli (one of the advocates in the oral trial) expressed one of the schools boards’ argument saying that “Tecumseh 's policy represents a natural, logical, and rational application of this Court 's decision in Vernonia V Acton.” School board also argued that the state of Oklahoma and its schools districts allowed the

They all simply seem to be arguing against the Drug Testing for the reason that it is just wrong, and unconstitutional. There is no information leading me to assume that the students had previous problems with drugs, and wanted to avoid the test. The parents must have also played a big part, upset with the whole Drug Testing Policy happening with their children at the school.

Majority decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision voted that the Drug Testing Policy was in fact, constitutional. The date for the decision was on June 27, 2002. The justices who voted for the majority were Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer. The majority decision was written by Clarence Thomas. The Court held that, “…because the policy reasonably serves the School District 's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, it is constitutional.” There were in fact no concurrent opinions written.

Dissenting opinion:
There were no dissenting opinions in the case of Board of Education of Independent School District of Pottawatomie County v. Earls.
Importance/significance of this