Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association is a significant Supreme Court case that addresses the constitutionality of mandatory drug testing for railway employees involved in serious accidents or safety violations. The Federal Railroad Administration established these testing requirements to ensure safety in transportation, citing the urgency of detecting drug use due to the rapid absorption of substances in the body. A lower court had previously ruled that such testing could not occur without individualized suspicion; however, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, upheld the testing as reasonable given the government's compelling interest in public safety.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emphasized that requiring individualized suspicion could jeopardize public safety, as impairment might occur before any suspicion could be established. The ruling is viewed within the broader context of legal precedents related to drug testing in various sectors, including customs employees and students participating in sports. While the decision supports safety measures in transportation, it also raises important discussions about privacy rights and the balance between individual freedoms and collective safety. This case is part of an ongoing dialogue in American law regarding the limits of government authority in enforcing safety standards and the implications for personal privacy.
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association
Date: March 21, 1989
Citation: 489 U.S. 602
Issue: Search and seizure
Significance: The Supreme Court held that federal regulations requiring drug testing of railroad employees involved in train accidents did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The Federal Railroad Administration, under its statutory authority to set safety standards, required employees to take a breath or urine test if they were involved in a serious train accident or if they violated safety rules. A court of appeals ruled that the tests could not be required without individualized suspicion. Writing for a 7-2 majority, however, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy concluded that mandatory drug tests were reasonable in view of the government’s interest in safe transportation. It was not practical to require a warrant because of the speed at which evidence of drug abuse is absorbed by the body. A requirement of suspicion, moreover, could place the traveling public at risk because an employee’s performance could be impaired long before there was enough evidence to establish suspicion.
The same day it issued Skinner, the Supreme Court also announced its approval of drug testing for customs inspectors in National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989). Later, in Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995), the Court upheld random drug testing for students who participate in interscholastic sports. In Chandler v. Miller (1997), however, the Court invalidated a Georgia policy requiring all political candidates to submit to drug testing.