Vernonia+School+District+v.+Acton

__Background__

In 1991, in a small town by the name of Vernonia Oregon, there was a boy named James Acton, who attended Washington Grade Middle School. Since the town had nothing but a logging company, sports were a big part of the town. In the fall of 1991. James decided to go out for football. He also planned on playing basketball and running track. Before anyone could participate in football they were given a sheet to take home. A parent and the student had to sign the sheet. It started that both the student and the parent consented to the random drug tests the school gave. James and his parents did not believe in the drug tests and didn't want their son to be tested. Wayne and Judy Acton thought that it was a violation of Jame's privacy. They soon scheduled a meeting with Rany Aultman, the principal of the school. James parents told the principal that they objected to the consent form and weren't going to sign it. The school did not have any reason to believe that James used drugs and it violated his privacy, principal Aultman told the family that James could not participate in sports if the sheet was not signed both sides refused the Acton's refused to sign the sheet and the school refused to allow James to play sports. So on November 4 1991 a man named Thomas Christ filed the Acton's lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of Organ. The Acton's complaint started that the random drug test was a violation of the 4th and 14th ammendment it also stated that the court rule out the random drug test.

__Majority Opinoin__

Justice Scalia wrote that "as guardian and tutor of children entrusted to its care," had developed a program to meet its responsibilites to the students. Justice Marsh suggested that Vernonia School District had a student body that was in a state of rebellion which was being fueled by drugs and alcohol and that this was a program fitting its needs as guardian. Justice Ginsburg wrote that the ruling that the random drug testing of athletes was not a violation of the students 4th Amendment rights did not mean that a school could randomly test all students.

__Dissenting Opinion__

Justice O'Conner wrote that this was a major change in the stance of the court from past rulings that had allowed suspicionless searches under the 4th Amendment. It had been reserved for State and Federal Authorities only in the past. Now we are opening the suspicionless searches to everyone. She wrote that it would have been far better for the District to focus on the know users and abusers than to just randonly test student athletes.