National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab
489 U.S. 656 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government may require suspicionless drug testing by urinalysis for employees seeking promotion or transfer to positions that directly involve drug interdiction or require the incumbent to carry a firearm. Such suspicionless searches are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the government demonstrates a compelling interest, beyond normal law enforcement needs, that outweighs the privacy expectations of the employees.
Facts:
- The U.S. Customs Service is the federal agency responsible for interdicting illegal drugs, and many of its employees carry firearms and have direct contact with drug traffickers.
- The Commissioner of Customs implemented a drug-testing program that required urinalysis for all employees seeking transfer or promotion to positions with three criteria: direct involvement in drug interdiction, a requirement to carry a firearm, or access to classified material.
- The Commissioner stated that the Customs Service was believed to be "largely drug-free" and that the program was intended to deter drug use in sensitive positions, not to address a pre-existing drug problem.
- Under the program, an employee is notified that final selection for a covered position is contingent on passing a drug test.
- To provide a sample, the employee reports to an independent contractor's site and produces the sample in a private stall, while a monitor of the same sex remains nearby to listen for normal sounds of urination to ensure the sample's integrity.
- The samples are tested for the presence of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine using a two-test process to ensure accuracy.
- Test results may be used for dismissal but cannot be turned over to criminal prosecutors or any other agency without the employee's written consent.
Procedural Posture:
- The National Treasury Employees Union (petitioner) sued the Commissioner of Customs (respondent) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
- The district court (trial court) held that the drug-testing program was unconstitutional and granted the Union's request for an injunction to stop the program.
- The Commissioner of Customs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit (intermediate appellate court) reversed the trial court's decision, vacating the injunction and holding that the testing program was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a U.S. Customs Service policy requiring mandatory, suspicionless drug testing by urinalysis for employees seeking transfer or promotion to positions involving drug interdiction or requiring the carrying of a firearm violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No, for employees involved in drug interdiction or who carry firearms; the issue is remanded for those who handle classified material. The U.S. Customs Service's mandatory, suspicionless drug testing policy is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for employees in positions directly related to drug interdiction or requiring the use of firearms. Urinalysis constitutes a search, but where a Fourth Amendment intrusion serves 'special governmental needs' beyond normal law enforcement, the court must balance the individual’s privacy expectations against the government's interests. The government has a compelling interest in ensuring the physical fitness and unimpeachable integrity of front-line drug interdiction personnel and in preventing employees with impaired judgment from carrying firearms. Employees in these specific roles have a diminished expectation of privacy due to the unique demands of their positions. Because the government's interests in safeguarding the borders and public safety outweigh the privacy interests of these employees, the suspicionless testing is reasonable. The Court remanded the portion of the case concerning employees who handle 'classified material' because the record was not clear whether this category was defined too broadly.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. A search of the person under the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause, and the Court's abandonment of this standard is unprincipled. Even under a balancing analysis, the program is unreasonable because it is not adequately tailored to its stated goals, as noted by Justice Scalia and the dissenting judge in the court below.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
Yes. The drug-testing program constitutes an unreasonable search because the government failed to demonstrate a real problem of drug use within the Customs Service that the program would solve. Unlike in prior cases upholding suspicionless searches, there is no evidence of a drug problem or a demonstrated connection between employee drug use and potential harm. The government's justifications are based on speculation, not evidence, as shown by the Commissioner's own statement that the agency is 'largely drug-free' and the fact that only 5 of 3,600 employees tested positive. The program is an 'immolation of privacy and human dignity in symbolic opposition to drug use,' and using the impairment of individual liberties to make a symbolic point cannot validate an otherwise unreasonable search.
Analysis:
This case, along with its companion case Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn., formally established the 'special needs' doctrine as a significant exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements. The decision solidified the use of a balancing test for administrative searches where the government can demonstrate a compelling interest separate from ordinary law enforcement. This precedent has profoundly impacted public employment law, allowing for suspicionless drug testing of employees in a wide range of safety-sensitive, security, and public-integrity-related positions. It created a framework that subsequent courts have used to evaluate the constitutionality of various government-mandated testing programs, from schools to transportation.
Unlock the full brief for National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab