Board Of Education V. Earls Case Study

Studies as recent as 2001 have shown that 50% of 12th graders have been associated with drug use (“Frequently”). Schools have identified this to be a crucial issue, especially if it is a student who participates in extracurricular activities. Frequent drug use has caused schools to enforce drug test policies. The problem is, not everyone is on board with this new policy. To comprehend the Board of Education v. Earls case of 2002, one must interpret the history prior to the case, contemplate the arguments throughout the case, and recognize the significance of the case. This issue has caused enough controversy to make it all the way to the Supreme Court.
In order to understand Board of Education v. Earls case, one must first interpret the history

prior to the case. During the time period of the case, Lindsey Earls was a sophomore student attending Tecumseh High School in Oklahoma. She was involved in numerous extracurricular activities; choir, marching band, and National Honor Society (Kim 974). Because she participated in these activities, she was subject to drug tests. This was a school policy. In the fall of 1998, the Tecumseh school district constructed the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy (Edmonson 268). This policy “requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity” (“Board” 1). Consequences for positive urine tests include drug counseling, 14-day suspension, or complete suspension from extracurricular activities. Earls took her school’s new policy in a negative way, and claimed the Drug Testing is highly unnecessary and violates people’s privacy. She brought up Fourth Amendment in The Constitution that provides “protection against unreasonable searches” (Kim 974). This violation lead to Earls filing a lawsuit to her school district; little did she know her suit would make its way to the Supreme Court.
Another key component in understanding the Board of Education v.

Earls case is to be able to contemplate the arguments throughout the case. One of the most crucial arguments The Board of Education claimed “there are “special needs” in public school context, including maintaining discipline and order” (Kim 974). Tecumseh School’s main focus was to maintain a safe and healthy environment for their students. In order to do this, a student’s privacy is limited in a public school environment (Edmonson). The state is responsible for their students and recommends them to have limited expectation of privacy. Earls argued her drug test results were improperly handled by district employees and were easily visible to other students (“Board”). In addition to Earls’ arguments, she questioned why students not involved in an athletic activity had to participate in the drug testing. Since none of Earls’ extracurricular activities involved athletics, she complained, “this test is just an unnecessary invasion of privacy” (“Before” 186). After both sides polished and presented their arguments, the jury came to a conclusion. “In a split 5 to 4 win, because the policy reasonably serves the School District's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, it is constitutional”

(“Board”).
To completely appreciate The Board of Education v. Earls case, one must recognize the significance of the case. Surveys were performed in the public school districts of Texas. The surveys concluded that 656 out of 827 schools have responded to the court case by implementing some type of drug-testing policy (Edmonson 269). This remarkable number of schools enforcing drug-testing policies suddenly decreased drug use in schools all over the nation. It appeared that students valued participating in their extracurricular activities then associate with drugs (Edmonson 272). The consequences of drug use were not worth it to them. Due to the number of drug tests occurring around the country, there comes an expense. One urinary drug test can cost between 40-50 dollars (“Frequently”). Many schools today are facing ongoing budget challenges. This could lead to troubles with providing enough drug tests for the students. If schools are having trouble administering the drug tests, drug policies are going to be more difficult to enforce.
To grasp the Board of Education v. Earls case of 2002, one must decipher the history prior to the case, consider the arguments throughout the case, and identify the significance of the case. High school student Lindsey Earls took a stand when she pleaded that Tecumseh’s extracurricular drug testing policy conflicted with the Fourth Amendment in The Constitution. This dispute was taken all the way to the Supreme Court. Victorious Tecumseh school district convinced the jury that in order to maintain a safe and healthy school society, extracurricular drug tests must strike. This elevated case influenced many other public school districts to initiate drug-testing policies. Earls never imagined that her Supreme Court debut would make such a powerful impact on schools all around the country.