Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Supreme Court Approves Random Drug Testing in Public Schools
Aired June 27, 2002 - 14:06 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: The nation's highest court handed down two rulings today that could reshape American education, outside of this issue of the pledge.
Perhaps the most critical involved school vouchers. In a five to four ruling, the Supreme Court approved the use of public funds to send disadvantaged students to private or religious schools. It's a major victory for President Bush and other advocates of the voucher program.
In another narrow ruling, the justices OK'd random drug testing in public high schools. They said concerns over school drug use outweigh an individuals right to privacy. The tests would apply to students involved in after-school activities, outside of just athletics.
And if you see a contradiction between the high court ruling on school vouchers and the appeals court ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance, you're not alone.
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin says the voucher ruling doesn't bode well for the pledge ruling's prospects. Is that right -- Jeff.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely not. We're talking about the provision of the Constitution. It's the establishment clause of the first amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
And here you have the Supreme Court today saying that it is OK to take government money and transfer it directly to religious schools. That's not a violation of the rule of the separation between church and state.
At the same time, or the day after, you have an appeals court saying in California that the mere mention of "under God" in a public classroom is a violation of the Constitution.
I do think there's a contradiction between the two. And, as always happens when there's a contradiction between the United States Supreme Court and any other court, the Supreme Court wins. And I think that bodes very ill for this decision lasting very long.
WHITFIELD: Now, how likely is it able to -- is it likely to take when it comes down to this California case if, indeed, they decide to take it to the full panel with the appellant court? How much time are we talking about elapsing?
TOOBIN: The federal appeals courts do not work at warp speed. This will be undoubtedly several months. The interesting thing will be whether there is any litigation immediately on the question of a stay.
The opinion is somewhat unclear about whether the public schools today have to stop doing the Pledge of Allegiance. I mean, that's the implication, but they don't explicitly order that.
The Justice Department could very likely go to a district court, a trial court, and say we want a stay of this decision -- that is, we want to put everything on hold pending the resolution of appeals, which is likely to happen.
So I think, you know, this has been a tremendous political and legal drama over the past day, but it may actually have relatively little effect, because the pledge probably will not be withdrawn in the short-term, and in the long-term this decision is likely to be overruled.
WHITFIELD: OK. Let's talk about the drug testing now.
The Supreme Court justices say it's OK to have random drug testing. It's not just for athletes, but even you're in a school band, if you're in the debate club, et cetera -- if the school decides they want to conduct a drug test, they can do so.
How might those random drug tests be actually executed?
TOOBIN: Well, the court is obviously very concerned about students and drugs, and this is likely just to be a marginal extension of the system that already exists.
The actual mechanics of how drug tests work are likely to vary a great deal from school district to school district. We have a very decentralized education system. The federal government doesn't tell every school district how to run their affairs.
But what's important about this decision is you see more and more students -- it is now permissible to have random testing. A decision from 1995, as you pointed out, said that student athletes, anybody involved in school athletics, could have random drug tests. Now we have all extra curricular activities -- the band, Future Farmers of America. They can be school tested for drugs.
The interesting future legal issue will be whether all students, for whatever reason, can have random drug testing. As soon as a school district comes up with that idea, you can be sure it will be tested in court, and we'll see what happens there.
WHITFIELD: Well, it seems like this is certainly the ruling that offers precedence to that, because this just might be the launch pad for random tests school-wide.
TOOBIN: Absolutely. If you read the opinion, it certainly seems like that -- at first, the justification for testing the athletes, from the older decision, related to the fact that it was a physical activity, there was potential danger to the students.
Here, they made some references to the physical danger of things like Future Farmers of America, operating machine equipment. But it's hard to take what danger the French club is in, or the band is in, because of drug use.
The real issue here is drug, not what the students are doing. And so it seems increasingly likely that the court will uphold random drug testing of students, period, regardless of what their extracurricular activities are.
WHITFIELD: All right. Thanks very much. Jeffrey Toobin, appreciate it.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
