1. Vernonia School District 47j v. Acton (1995)
515 U.S S. Ct. 2386
By: Hannah Phillips

2. What is the constitutional issue involved in the case?
Due to increased drug use, the school Vernonia, wanted to implement urine drug tests for all student athletes. Their reasoning for this was because the athletes are seen as leaders of the drug culture. The fourth amendment forbids unreasonable seizes and searches. So many thought this was unconstitutional but the school believed this would decrease sports related injuries.

3. Who were the parties involved in the case?
The parties involved in this case was the Vernonia School District and The Acton family.

4. When and where did the case take place?
This case was in 1995 and it took place in Vernonia, Oregon.

5. What events lead up to the case going before the Supreme Court?
A 7th grade student, James Acton, was not allowed to participate in a school sport. He was denied permission to play because his parents had refused to sign the consent form allowing him take a drug test for his sport. The Acton family then filed a lawsuit due to unfairness. The drug epidemic was a huge problem in this particular school district.

6. What Court or courts heard this before getting to the Supreme Court
U.S. District court
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

7. Historical Context: what was happening in the world that this case needed to be tried?
Drugs were a big issue in the world around this time. Drugs were ruling every school and many teenagers become addicted. This school In particular saw drugs as a major issue and wanted to make sure their students did not ruin their lives so soon. The people who didn’t do drug were very against those who did and were in possession of it.

8. What was the Supreme Court’s ruling / decision?
The supreme court ruled that this was constitutional acceptable. The ruling was 6-3 that is was perfectly reasonable.

9. What was the reasoning given by the Supreme Court for making their decision?
The supreme court ruled that this was constitutional acceptable. They felt that it did not violate the 4th amendment. Their reason for this conclusion is because their was cause for suspicion. The school staff members have permission to act as a parent to students under the “loco parentis” rule. Due to this they do not need warrants to search and seize.

10. Opposing Viewpoints
Others thought it was not right too drug test everyone individually just because they played sports. Many saw that there was no individual suspicion so they shouldn't have drug tested everyone. And that only if there was reasonable cause, that they should drug test the individuals.

11. How do you feel about the ruling? Why?
I feel the ruling was very acceptable. I believe this because when you send your children to school you know that the staff has the right to act as their parents. You sign the form saying that you acknowledge the matter of “loco parentis”. They knew drugs were a big issue and school and knew everyone looked up to the athletes as the drug leaders. They just wanted to make sure everyone was safe and sports related injuries were decreased.

12. Dissenting opinion
The majority opinion is that it is acceptable. I agree with this because the school just wanted to make sure student kept out of the harmful substances. The school also made a valid point that sports are voluntary so not all students were subject to drug testing. The school just wanted their athletes to be good role models. They also wanted to decrease the risk of sports related injuries and thought that if they made sure the drugs weren’t aiding in injuries during sports.

13. Significance
The significance of this case was that now schools all over saw it was actually acceptable to drug test students. The court case pointed out that schools already required certain testing and vaccinations. Vernonia pointed out that sports were voluntary so not everyone in the school had to be subject to drug testing.