Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Drug Testing, Vouchers

Aired June 27, 2002 - 12:10   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: If you have got kids in public schools, this too might be of interest, your children, where they might go to school and what might happen to them once they are in school. Just two of the hotly debated issues the nation's highest court ruled on this morning.

CNN National Correspondent Bob Franken joins us from outside the U.S. Supreme Court -- hi there, Bob.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Fredricka. And of course, there is an obvious connection between the major story from the Supreme Court and the ruling of having to do with the Pledge of Allegiance vote involving the establishment clause of the Constitution, which is supposed to put up a wall between church and state.

In the case of the vouchers program here, the justices have ruled that in fact it is constitutional -- is constitutional for the Cleveland school system to provide vouchers to children that can be used in schools that teach religion. It was a 5-4 ruling.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FRANKEN (voice-over): This was not about drug tests for student athletes. The Supreme Court had already ruled that was OK to protect the physical safety of the student athlete.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FRANKEN: We will be reporting on the drug testing in just a moment, but I want to bring you up to date on what the Supreme Court justices did on the Cleveland school vouchers program. As I said, it was 5-4. The majority was in favor of the vouchers program.

This is a program, which has been put on hold pending its court test, which allowed parents in substandard public schools to take money from the government that could be used for private schools, including their right to choose parochial schools, schools that are allowed to have mandated religious education. Since the parents are allowed to choose, the court ruled that it was still a neutral program.

And Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the chief justice wrote this opinion, says that "the constitutionality of a neutral education aide program simply does not turn on why in a particular time most private schools or religious or most recipients choose to use the aide of religious schools." The fact of the matter is, is that by a huge margin, the parents in Cleveland were sending their children to Catholic schools. The opponents argued that's because there weren't that many secular private schools.

Now, there, of course, were some stinging dissents on this 5 to 4 ruling, including one by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said that the majority opinion was -- quote -- "profoundly misguided." He referred to the Balkans, Northern Ireland and the Mideast, saying, "Whenever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government, we increase the risk of religious strife." That was the losing point of view. It was a ruling in favor of the vouchers program.

And that was not the only one that was involved today with schools. The other significant opinion today has expanded the right of school systems to drug test their students. In the past, they had said that athletics programs could be subject to drug testing, because of the obvious danger that athletes might face if they were under the influence. But now, they have said that drug testing may be administered in all extracurricular activities, the 4-H Club, Future Farmers, Future Homemakers of America, that type of thing. And the ruling there had to do with the fact that they decided that the use of drugs itself was a danger to the students, and that was reason enough for the drug tests to be administered.

Quoting from Judge Clarence Thomas' ruling, "The need to prevent and deter the substantial harm of childhood drug use provides the necessary immediacy for a school testing policy." He talked about the epidemic of drug use among children as justification enough.

There were dissents. There was one from Sandra Day O'Connor who said: "This particular program is not reasonable. It is capricious and even perverse, that it is even now allowed by the Supreme Court" -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: Now, Bob, there was another ruling today as it pertains to judges, correct, on whether they are able to profess their points of view on politically-charged issues?

FRANKEN: It's an interesting one, because in 30 states, judges run for office. But there is an ethics committee, an ethics set up in Minnesota, which prevented them from, in fact, expressing their opinions during these political campaigns. The Supreme Court justices today ruled that that was a violation of the right to freedom of speech. Therefore, judges would be allowed as they campaign to express their opinions on subjects.

WHITFIELD: All right. Bob Franken from the U.S. Supreme Court -- thank you very much.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com