High Court Allows Schools Broader Use of Drug Tests

The Supreme Court on Monday gave school officials broader authority to administer drug tests to students and to discipline teachers who inject controversial ideas into the curriculum.

Acting on two closely watched appeals on the first day of its new term, the justices dismissed a constitutional challenge to an expanded school drug testing program in Indiana and rejected a 1st Amendment challenge filed on a behalf of a North Carolina drama teacher.

The court’s opening session is typically a day of disappointment for lawyers and litigants, and this first Monday in October proved no exception. More than 1,600 appeals were dismissed without a hearing.

The actions in the school cases are not binding decisions, but they let stand conservative appellate rulings that are likely to be widely cited. Over the last decade, the high court has consistently deferred to school authorities in disputes involving the scope of constitutional rights.

Three years ago, the court said high school athletes can be forced to undergo drug tests. This does not violate a student’s privacy rights under the 4th Amendment, the court said, because of special circumstances for sports. For safety’s sake, athletes traditionally submit to physical exams before the season. Moreover, playing under the influence of drugs might lead to severe injuries.

But some school officials saw this ruling as allowing even broader testing. In 1996, the Rushville, Ind., school district announced a policy of random and unannounced drug tests for students who participated in all extracurricular activities, including the library club, the student council and Future Farmers of America. To participate, a student must consent to submit to regular urine samples to test for illegal drugs, alcohol or cigarettes.

Officials stressed the policy was not punitive. Those who tested positive were barred from the extra activities or from driving to school until they were tested again and found to be clean, but they were not arrested or prosecuted.

The parents of William Todd, a freshman who videotaped football games, and several others filed a lawsuit with the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union. They claimed that since many affected students were not suspected of drug use, the testing was not justified. Moreover, the students were not participating in potentially dangerous activities, they said.

Nonetheless, a federal judge upheld the program, and the U.S. appeals court in Chicago agreed on a 7-4 vote. “If the schools are to survive and prosper, school administrators must have reasonable means at their disposal to deter [bad] conduct,” the majority said. The dissenters complained the ruling “sanctions the use of a urine sample as the price of admission to the public schools.”

The ACLU appealed the case of Todd vs. Rush County, 97-2021, arguing that the lower-court ruling will be seen as a green light for random testing of most students. But the justices dismissed it in a one-line order.

The other school-related case--involving the North Carolina drama coach--is expected to deal a severe blow to the notion of constitutionally protected “academic freedom” for teachers.

Over 14 years, Peggy Boring had coached a high school drama team that regularly won state and regional awards. In 1991, her team of four actresses performed the play “Independence” by Lee Blessing, the story of a single mother and her three grown but troubled daughters--one of whom is a lesbian.

Although intended for a drama competition, not a school play, some students saw the performance, and one parent complained to the school board. A few months later, after a public hearing, the teacher was removed from her post and transferred to another school.

She sued, contending the 1st Amendment and the principle of academic freedom shielded her from being disciplined simply because of the play’s controversial theme.

On a 6-5 vote, the U.S. court of appeals disagreed, calling the matter “nothing more than an ordinary employment dispute.”

The National Education Assn. appealed the case of Boring vs. Buncombe County, 97-1835, but again the justices dismissed it without a hearing.

In other actions, the court:

* Agreed to rule on whether a defense lawyer can sue a Los Angeles prosecutor for having him searched while his client was before a grand jury. Paul Gabbert was representing a witness in the Menendez brothers murder case when prosecutors had him searched, apparently suspecting he might have an incriminating letter. He sued, but the court will consider whether the prosecutors have immunity. The case of Conn vs. Gabbert, 97-1802, will be heard early next year.

* Let stand a $67-million price-fixing verdict against the National Collegiate Athletic Assn. for restricting annual salaries to $16,000 for some assistant coaches (NCAA vs. Law, 97-2004).

* Rejected New York Mayor Rudolph W. Guiliani’s bid to get rid of bus ads that mocked him. New York magazine touted itself as “possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn’t taken credit for.” Not amused, the mayor told the transit authority it could not use a person’s name without consent. But two federal courts ruled the 1st Amendment protects free speech and political satire (MTA vs. New York magazine, 97-2020).

* Refused to shield composer Andrew Lloyd Webber from a copyright infringement trial over “The Phantom of the Opera.” Another composer says he wrote a strikingly similar tune. Although Lloyd Webber said he had never heard the other tune, that is not enough to forestall the trial, a lower court said (Lloyd Webber vs. Repp, 97-1881).

* Agreed to decide whether workers with a disability can file discrimination lawsuits against their employer and also obtain Social Security benefits for the disabled. Employers dispute how a person can be a “qualified individual” able to work, a necessary criteria for filing a discrimination lawsuit, yet at the same time receive benefits as being totally disabled (Cleveland vs. Policy Management, 97-1008).