Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, et al. v. Lindsay Earls et al.
The Court held, 5–4, that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for public schools to conduct mandatory drug testing on students participating in extracurricular activities.
536 U.S. 822 · No. 01-332 · 2001 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 27, 2002 · argued Mar 19, 2002
Privacy · Privacy
Landmark · Fourth Amendment rights
Majority opinion: Clarence Thomas
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed. Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, et al. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002), was a case by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for public schools to conduct mandatory drug testing on students participating in extracurricular activities.
The case centered around a policy adopted by the school district of Tecumseh, Oklahoma requiring all students involved in extracurricular activities, including the school's sports teams, to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs. Two students, Lindsay Earls and Daniel James, brought a lawsuit against the school board, alleging that the policy violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2001 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Clarence ThomasWrote the majority opinion
Stephen BreyerWrote a concurrence
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Ruth GinsburgWrote a dissent
Sandra O'ConnorWrote a dissent
John StevensJoined a dissent
David SouterJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, et al.Local school district or board of education (Oklahoma)
- Respondent
- Lindsay Earls et al.Student, or applicant for admission to an educational institution
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Fourth Amendment
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 27, 2002DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed. Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, et al. won.
- Mar 19, 2002ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit: reversed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
16 other argued cases since 1946 on privacy, newest first.
- United States, Petitioner v. James X. Bormes568 U.S. 6Nov 13, 2012 · 568 U.S. 6Privacy9–0Unanimous band
- Federal Aviation Administration, et al., Petitioners v. Stanmore Cawthon Cooper566 U.S. 284Mar 28, 2012 · 566 U.S. 284Privacy5–36–3 band
- General Dynamics Corporation, Petitioner, v. United States563 U.S. 478May 23, 2011 · 563 U.S. 478Privacy9–0Unanimous band
- Buck Doe v. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor540 U.S. 614Feb 24, 2004 · 540 U.S. 614Privacy6–36–3 band
- John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner v. TexasLandmark · Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity539 U.S. 558Jun 26, 2003 · 539 U.S. 558PrivacyLandmark · Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity6–36–3 band
- Gonzaga University and Roberta S. League v. John Doe536 U.S. 273Jun 20, 2002 · 536 U.S. 273Privacy7–27–2 band
- Owasso Independent School District No. I-011, aka Owasso Public Schools, et al. v. Kristja J. Falvo, Parent and Next Friend of Her Minor Children, Elizabeth Pletan, Philip Pletan, and Erica Pletan534 U.S. 426Feb 19, 2002 · 534 U.S. 426Privacy9–0Unanimous band
- Jenifer Troxel, et vir v. Tommie Granville530 U.S. 57Jun 5, 2000 · 530 U.S. 57Privacy6–36–3 band
- Walker L. Chandler, et al. v. Zell D. Miller, Governor of Georgia, et al.520 U.S. 305Apr 15, 1997 · 520 U.S. 305Privacy8–18–1 band
- Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Richard G. Evans et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity517 U.S. 620May 20, 1996 · 517 U.S. 620PrivacyLandmark · Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity6–36–3 band
- Vernonia School District 47j v. Wayne Acton, et ux., etc.Landmark · Fourth Amendment rights515 U.S. 646Jun 26, 1995 · 515 U.S. 646PrivacyLandmark · Fourth Amendment rights6–36–3 band
- Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia v. Hardwick et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity478 U.S. 186Jun 30, 1986 · 478 U.S. 186PrivacyLandmark · Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity5–45–4 band
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., et al.435 U.S. 589Apr 18, 1978 · 435 U.S. 589Privacy5–45–4 band
- Whalen, Commissioner of Health of New York v. Roe et al.429 U.S. 589Feb 22, 1977 · 429 U.S. 589Privacy9–0Unanimous band
- Griswold et al. v. ConnecticutLandmark · Birth control and abortion381 U.S. 479Jun 7, 1965 · 381 U.S. 479PrivacyLandmark · Birth control and abortion7–27–2 band
- Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia et al. v. Pollak et al.343 U.S. 451May 26, 1952 · 343 U.S. 451Privacy6–27–2 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.