The studies all suggest that 10% of welfare recipients are on drugs - and could be higher once you expand out from TANF and focus on state-administered programs.
10% of the billions of dollars spent on welfare could be curbed by $35/person test? Seems like a pretty good deal
I think this is a case where the rational basis with a bite would apply.
The government already stated that it has an interest in preventing misuse of government grants. There's also the fact that while there's a compelling state interest in curbing misuse of welfare money, the law is not narrow enough to just test those suspected in engaging in such activity. It's a broad law that applies to everyone requesting welfare the same, including children and seniors.
You're assuming that all 10% of illicit drug user fail the test, but all the data shows that % to be much lower. There was a pilot, they canceled it. Done. The moron Walker was pandering to Conservatives to win an election.
Don't forget also that the SCOTUS has applied different standards over time for situations entailing state funding (see Plyler v. Doe for an example).
intermediate scrutiny ("rational basis with a bite") only applies in gender cases.
anything above rational-basis review requires a violation of an individual cons utional right. While creative, the examples you give suggest that the government is the injured party, and therefore should be the beneficiary of strict-scrutiny. But then, somehow, the government is not only not protected, but fails to satisfy a test that shouldn't even be applied in the first place? That's convoluted and not how it would work.
Testing would be rational. While perhaps over-inclusive, it's still sufficient to cons ute a rational governmental policy to curb drug use. End result - it's cons utional.
I mispoke - Alienage (Plyler) and Gender are the two categories that get intermediate scrutiny.
Not true.. see Plyler v. Doe.
4th amendment.
Disagree, both that it's cons utional and that strict-scrutiny should be applied. We'll see when and if it reaches the SCOTUS.
I think that, it being a pilot, it's hard to draw definitive conclusions one way or another.
I didn't see where the % of people failing the test was lower than 10%.
I'm not a statistics guy - I'm a law guy. So I'm admittedly behind the curve on this one.
And while the rational test is used mostly on 1st amendment and 14th amendment cases, the 'modified' version that's normally used under 4th amendment cases is normally used because it applies mostly to law enforcement. This would not be the case here, so I'm certainly curious to see what standard the SCOTUS would apply.
The problem is that - if intermediate or strict scrutiny is not used - the chances are incredibly high that testing will be upheld.
Just think of the court's makeup - you honestly think Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy wouldn't think the government passes rational basis review?
Agree with that. Also agree that the composition of the current court would make it more likely to pass unscathed. That's why I'm hoping this doesn't reach the court with the current makeup.
You don't have to be a statistics guy. It's right in the article you posted as well as in my previous post.
You guys can debate all day whether it's cons utional, which is fine because it's kind of fun to read, but it failed policy. It was nothing more than Rick Scott pandering to a bunch of tea bags to win an election. He won and now he's following through on his campaign promises even though it's a waste of time and money.Of the 8,797 applicants screened for drugs, only 335 (3.8 percent) showed evidence of having a controlled substance in their systems and failed the test
BTW, in Chandler vs Miller...
'Ginsburg said no concrete danger or special need had been established to require an exception to the general rule that government cannot search someone without individual su ion'
Which begs the question of whether Ginsburg would sustain that argument in this case.
Then there's "Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton" and "Board of Education v. Earls" where everything gets muddier.
I can come at this another way.
If random searches of students' lockers are not violations of privacy, why would random drug tests be any different?
The reason would be that the SCOTUS has been fairly consistent in outlawing blanket search powers (searches without 'individual su ion'), and has established that drug testing is a search under the 4th amendment. The sole exceptions to that rule lately seem to have been cir scribed to children in a school setting. At least, that's what I can gather from the available case law.
EDIT: Obviously, the other exception being the well-known airport searches.
Lol you shouldn't have brought that up.
(And yes, the SCOTUS did say that there was a distinction between adults and children when it came to prioritizing drug testing)
Why not?
I thought more information on case law, the better?
The "preventing crime" rationale that applies in schools seems to equally apply here - but I was just showing the analogy between schools (as a public/state ins ution), welfare (as a public program), and the diminished expectation of privacy.
But even aside from that, if random testing of HS athletes is allowed, its hard to see why similar tests of welfare recipients wouldn't be.
Actually, it would be difficult, because among other things the SCOTUS argued that the school acts as in loco parentis to the kids. There's no such criteria that applies to welfare recipients.
The dissent on that case by Justice O'Connor also highlights the exception to the customary 'individualized su ion' requirement when dealing with searches.
IMO, it's a much more clear cut case if you're dealing with schools and children. It's a lot more difficult if you're dealing with the general population.
I think Earls is probably a better case, yet also based on a school settings and grabbing some of the precedent from Vernonia. Notice that Earls ended up being a 5-4 decision with Ginsburg actually being in dissent in that case.
I would also argue that "United States v. Kincade" can be eventually used to argue to overturn such a requirement, although that one has yet to reach the SCOTUS. But what the 9th circuit used as an excuse for compelling the testing couldn't be applied to the general population.
No. It doesn't.
That are, and always have been, a number of strings attached. Even without any form of drug testing, there are plenty of hoops that need to be jumped through in order to both obtain and maintain welfare benefits. In fact, the number of requirements that need to be met in order to continue receiving benefits are extensive enough that I would imagine it to be pretty difficult for a habitual drug user to continue to fulfill them. Or, perhaps more accurately, for multiple habitual drug users to continue to fulfill them.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
