OTHER SUPREME COURT RULINGS: SCHOOLS CAN FORCE STUDENT DRUG TESTING

Judicial Candidates Can Voice Opinions

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday that public schools
can require drug tests for students in extracurricular activities such as
choir or band, even if there is no suspicion of drug use.

Random urinalysis was a "reasonable means" to prevent and detect drug use,
the court said, and outweighs an individual's right to privacy. Previously,
such tests had been allowed only for student-athletes.

"Students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities
voluntarily subject themselves to many of the same intrusions on their
privacy as do athletes," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.

Dissenting were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day
O'Connor and David Souter.

The case involved a former high school honor student in Pottawatomie County,
Okla., who competed on an academic quiz team and sang in the choir. Lindsay
Earls tested negative but sued over what she called a humiliating and
accusatory policy.

School officials said students involved in competitive extracurricular
activities were voluntarily representing the school and thus had a lower
expectation of privacy than students at large. Also, the school said, drug
tests were a deterrent for students who knew they couldn't participate in
activities unless they stayed clean.

Of the estimated 14 million U.S. high school students, educators say more
than half probably participate in some organized school activity. The trend
is toward greater participation, largely because colleges consider it a
factor in admissions.

In the Detroit Public Schools, Eunice Moore, director of health and physical
education, said about 11,700 of the district's 35,000 high school students
take part in after-school programs.

Students who want to play sports need a doctor's form showing they're
physically fit, Moore said, but doctors don't have to report whether they
tested for drugs.

"If that information is shared with the parent, that's not something we
would delve into," she said. "That's a private issue."

JUDGES' FREE SPEECH: The court ruled 5-4 that a state violates free-speech
rights by barring judicial candidates from speaking out on politically
charged issues likely to come before them as judges.

The court said Minnesota's rules, designed to protect the judiciary's
integrity, impartiality and independence, unconstitutionally inhibits
candidates. The ruling was a victory for the state's Republican Party and an
unsuccessful candidate who says the state's rules leave voters with little
useful information about candidates.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said "there is an obvious
tension" between the state's popular elections for judges and the limit
"which places most subjects of interest to the voters off limits."

Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. "The judicial
reputation for impartiality and open-mindedness is comprised by
electioneering that emphasizes the candidate's personal predilections rather
than his qualifications for judicial office," Stevens wrote.

INMATE PUNISHMENT: The court declared unconstitutional an Alabama prison
practice of handcuffing inmates to a metal pole for hours in the summer
heat. The punishment, revived in 1995 but since ended, is obvious cruel and
unusual punishment, the court said.

Stevens, writing for the majority, said former inmate Larry Hope "was
treated in a way antithetical to human dignity -- he was hitched to a post
for an extended period of time in a position that was painful, and under
circumstances that were both degrading and dangerous."

Hope said he was not allowed to sit or move more than a few inches from the
pole, while his arms were chained at head level. He was left once for seven
hours without a bathroom break, he said.

Guards removed his shirt and taunted him by bringing a bucket of water that
instead was given to prison dogs and poured at his feet, Hope said, and part
of his experience was photographed by national news media.

The vote was 6-3, with Thomas, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Scalia
dissenting.