Federal courts have recently rejected the actions of university and college administrators who sought to inflict suspicionless drug tests on students at a public college and to restrict the First Amendment rights of marijuana law reformers at a public university. Both decisions have important national implications.
Linn Tech Student Drug Testing Case
In 2011, Linn State Technical College administrators declared that they intended to drug test every student who applied for admission to the small, state-funded college located in Osage County, Missouri, a short distance east of Jefferson City. No other public college or university in America had pursued such a program. It seemed clear to those who follow such matters that college and university students have the same rights as other adults to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. While private institutions are not bound by the restraints of the Fourth Amendment, public tax-supported institutions are. Nonetheless, Linn Tech seemed determined to pursue inflicting random, suspicionless drug testing on their students.
Tony Rothert, the Legal Director of the ACLU of Missouri, filed suit against Linn Tech. I filed a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, working with Alex Kreit, a law professor from San Diego.
U.S. District Court Judge Nanette Laughrey, sitting in Jefferson City, subsequently issued a decision prohibiting such testing, with a few narrowly-drawn exceptions for those participating in training programs involving heavy machinery or high-voltage electricity.
Linn Tech appealed that decision to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. Legal scholars were shocked when a three-judge panel of that Court later sided with Linn Tech. In a decision which many believed ignored legal precedent and logic, two of three judges on the panel which initially heard the case sided with Linn Tech.
Mr. Rothert then filed for a rehearing of the case by the full 11-judge Court. Such hearings are rarely granted, but in this case, the Motion was granted. Following that rehearing, all but two of the judges on the full Court sided with the students and the ACLU, overturning the decision of the three-judge panel.
Still not satisfied, Linn Tech squandered more public tax money pursuing a Petition for Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Civil libertarians were concerned that the current high Court might indeed overturn the Eighth Circuit if it had accepted that Petition for review. However, on June 5, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied further review in this matter. Therefore, the decision of the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court is now the final decision in this matter. Linn Tech administrators have reluctantly acknowledged that they must now follow the Constitution and abandon their effort to impose suspicionless drug testing on their students.
Iowa State University NORML Censorship Case
In another important case closely watched by many across the nation, members of the NORML Chapter at Iowa State University in 2012 applied for approval to print t-shirts which contained the name of the university-recognized organization and included an image of the school’s mascot, “Cy, the Cyclone”. University administrators first approved those t-shirts, but when the ISU NORML Chapter asked to reprint them, the university caved in to pressure from legislative staff people who had complained that it appeared the university was supporting marijuana legalization.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) filed suit on behalf of the officers of the Iowa State University NORML Chapter, alleging content and viewpoint discrimination. The lawsuit sought to prevent university administrators from treating the NORML Chapter differently from other university-recognized student organizations. The federal district court in Iowa sided with the students and against the university. The university appealed to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, which issued a decision in February of this year upholding the federal district judge’s ruling.
Iowa State University administrators then asked the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court to reconsider its decision. The Court did so, which caused many to fear that they might change their minds.
However, on June 13, 2017, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court reaffirmed its earlier decision and went even further, holding that university administrators who prevented the ISU NORML Chapter from using the university’s trademarked images were individually liable for their actions and could, therefore, be ordered to pay damages from their own pockets!
Administrators at the University of Missouri in Columbia have taken similar actions in regard to the MU NORML Chapter. It is hoped that the decision of the Eighth U.S. Circuit will encourage MU administrators to reconsider their position.
The federal appellate court sent a loud and clear message to university administrators that they are required to respect the Constitutional rights of students, including those who advocate for reform of the marijuana laws.
While Iowa State could do as Linn Tech administrators did and continue to squander more public tax money pursuing an ill-considered position, it is not at all likely the U.S. Supreme Court would grant further review in this matter.
These two decisions have reaffirmed the rights of college and university students to be free from random, suspicionless drug testing and to speak out for drug law reform without censorship by administrators..
Two Major Victories For Student Rights In Federal Courts