Marchwinksi v. Howard already decided this. When Michigan passed a law like this, the 6th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals initially imposed an injunction against it. Then a panel of 3 judges on the court reversed the injunction, using the same argument you just attempted. But when the entire 12-judge bench heard the case, they reversed the panel and ruled that it IS, indeed, unconstitutional, and that the government cannot drug test welfare recipients without either (1) a compelling public safety reason, or (2) probable cause to suspect a crime.
Legal documents from all 3 stages of the case:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13040978699174765839&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8877026625684016309&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1290910828428113640&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrThe ACLU's amicus brief:
http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/marchwinskiamicusbrief1_22_01.pdf
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore