1. Willis v. Anderson Community School Corp. 158 F.3d 415 (7th Cir, 1998)

2. Facts A freshman high school student, Willis, was suspended for fighting. A freshman high school student, Willis, was suspended for fighting. The school's policies indicated that upon the student’s return to school he would have to submit to a drug test. The school's policies indicated that upon the student’s return to school he would have to submit to a drug test. The school's policy mandated testing for any student who possesses or uses tobacco, is suspended for fighting, or violates other identified school rules. The school's policy mandated testing for any student who possesses or uses tobacco, is suspended for fighting, or violates other identified school rules.

3. Facts (cont’d.) Willis refused to undertake the test and was informed that he would then be considered to have engaged in drug use and would again be suspended. Willis refused to undertake the test and was informed that he would then be considered to have engaged in drug use and would again be suspended. The school asserted that this policy was necessary because research data demonstrated a "causal nexus" between drug use and violent behavior, such as fighting with classmates. The school asserted that this policy was necessary because research data demonstrated a "causal nexus" between drug use and violent behavior, such as fighting with classmates.

4. Issue Is it legal to require drug testing of students suspended for fighting?

5. History Willis brought an action against the school claiming that the policy violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Willis brought an action against the school claiming that the policy violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Trial court held in favor of school policy requiring drug testing, likening the policy to that of other accepted policies, including drug testing of student athletes. Trial court held in favor of school policy requiring drug testing, likening the policy to that of other accepted policies, including drug testing of student athletes. Willis appealed. Willis appealed.

6. Holding Appeals Court overturned lower court’s decision, distinguishing this policy from those regarding student athletes. Appeals Court overturned lower court’s decision, distinguishing this policy from those regarding student athletes. Court found differences in the privacy interest involved, between drug testing of student athletes and the general student population, which made testing more acceptable in the case of student athletes. Court found differences in the privacy interest involved, between drug testing of student athletes and the general student population, which made testing more acceptable in the case of student athletes.

7. Holding (cont’d.) Drug testing of student athletes is more acceptable as student athletes choose to play sports and thus submit to greater regulation, including things like drug testing. Drug testing of student athletes is more acceptable as student athletes choose to play sports and thus submit to greater regulation, including things like drug testing. In this case the court rejected Anderson's policy primarily because the school's data did not support the policy reasons identified, that is, there was not a strong casual link between behaviors like fighting, and drug use In this case the court rejected Anderson's policy primarily because the school's data did not support the policy reasons identified, that is, there was not a strong casual link between behaviors like fighting, and drug use

8. Holding (cont’d) Finally, the court stated that it was important to prohibit this type of policy, and as a result to prevent routine drug testing of all students. Finally, the court stated that it was important to prohibit this type of policy, and as a result to prevent routine drug testing of all students.

9. Case Law Assignment Requirements PowerPoint Presentation (including the following…) PowerPoint Presentation (including the following…) Case Name and Citation Case Name and Citation Facts Facts What happened that led the parties to Court? Who is involved? What happened that led the parties to Court? Who is involved? Issue Issue What is the actual issue they are fighting over? What is the actual issue they are fighting over?

10. Case Law Assignment Requirements History History How did it get to the ultimate decision? Were lower Courts involved? How did it get to the ultimate decision? Were lower Courts involved? Holding Holding What was the ultimate decision of the Court? Should basically answer the questions asked by the issue. What was the ultimate decision of the Court? Should basically answer the questions asked by the issue.