HIGH COURT WIDENS SCHOOLS' RIGHT TO TEST THEIR STUDENTS FOR DRUGS

In Separate Ruling, Justices Bar Limits On What Judicial Candidates May Say

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court expanded the rights of school officials to
randomly test some students for drug use, saying that such efforts trump
privacy rights.

Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said that a rural Oklahoma
town's policy of testing students who participate in extracurricular
activities "reasonably serves the school district's important interest in
detecting and preventing drug use among its students."

Under the school district's program, which began in 1998, random drug tests
were required of any students who wanted to participate in extracurricular
activities, including Academic Team, Future Farmers of America, band, choir
and cheerleading.

Two students, along with their parents, challenged the program, saying that
it violated their Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches
and seizures. Justice Thomas, writing in the 5-4 decision, rejected their
argument.

The ruling expands on the court's 1995 ruling that an Oregon school
district where there was heavy drug use could randomly test high-school
athletes. In that case, the court found the testing permissible because of
concerns that any drug use during sports activities could result in
injuries, and because the athletes had already given up some privacy rights
by joining teams and undressing in locker rooms.

Justice Thomas said there are similarities between the reasoning in the
1995 decision and Thursday's opinion. "Students who participate in
competitive extracurricular activities voluntarily subject themselves to
many of the same intrusions on their privacy as do athletes." He added that
some clubs and activities involve travel, which, in turn often may involve
"communal undress."

But Graham Boyd, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who
represented one of the plaintiffs in the Oklahoma case, disagreed. "This is
a fairly strong erosion of the law protecting privacy. It puts students in
a category that is really not too distant from prisoners."

Lindsay Earls, one of the students who brought the lawsuit, recounted in an
interview several months ago that she was subjected to such a random drug
test when she was a sophomore in high school. Ms. Earls, who had been on
the school's academic team and now attends Dartmouth College in New
Hampshire, said that she was required to give a urine sample while a
teacher stood outside the bathroom stall listening to make sure she was
providing her own sample.

"I felt it was an invasion of my privacy, stepping into realms where only
my parents needed to go," she said.

That view is shared by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the dissent.
"If a student has a reasonable subjective expectation of privacy in the
personal items she brings to school, surely she has a similar expectation
regarding the chemical composition of her urine." (Pottawatomie County v.
Earls et al.)

In a separate ruling, the court decided that a Minnesota law that prohibits
candidates for judicial election from stating their views on certain legal
and political issues violates the First Amendment.

Versions of the Minnesota prohibition exist in nearly all of the 39 states
that hold some form of judicial elections.

The case involves a lawsuit filed by Gregory Wersal, a lawyer and
conservative Republican who ran -- unsuccessfully -- three times for a seat
on Minnesota's Supreme Court. During his first race, in 1996, he tried to
circumvent the rules by putting out a flyer criticizing several of the
state supreme court's rulings on issues such as crime, welfare and abortion.

His comments provoked an ethics filing against him, alleging that he had
violated the state law. Mr. Wersal dropped out of the race, fearing the
charges would jeopardize his ability to practice law.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Wersal said that the rule, which bars judicial
candidates from "announcing their views on disputed legal or political
issues" violated his free-speech rights.

Supporters of the prohibition, which include the American Bar Association,
say the restrictions protect judges from being pressured into taking sides
on issues that may come before them on the bench.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the only justice
elected to public office before joining the high court, said that "if the
state has a problem with judicial impartiality, it is largely one the state
brought upon itself by continuing the practice of popularly electing
judges." (Republican Party of Minnesota v. White)