While it is a good idea, other states have tried to enforce it only to be stuck down as unconstitutional~~
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article4261889.htmlTALLAHASSEE
A federal appeals court on Wednesday dealt another blow to Gov. Rick Scotts crusade to conduct drug tests on welfare applicants when it upheld a lower court ruling that the practice was unconstitutional.
The unanimous ruling from a bipartisan panel of judges concluded that the state failed to show any evidence as to why it was necessary to force applicants seeking Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to surrender their constitutional rights as a condition of receiving the aid.<snip>
We have no reason to think impoverished individuals are necessarily and inherently prone to drug use, or, for that matter, are more prone to drug use than the general population, the court said in its 54-page ruling.
Proponents hailed the decision, which came just two weeks after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case, and predicted it would have broader impact in protecting the rights of people receiving a wider range of government benefits from Bright Futures scholarships to drivers licenses.
This should be the end of the road for the governors crusade, said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, which sued the state. The opinion says that people cannot be forced to surrender constitutional rights as a condition of any government benefit driver licenses, library cards, student loans and farm subsidies.
Read more here:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article4261889.html#storylink=cpyhttp://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2014/04/22/good-news-supreme-court-rules-against-sweeping-drug-tests/You dont win them all, but once in awhile you win one. And in this case, it really matters.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to hear an appeal by Florida Governor, Republican and presidential-candidate wannabe Rick Scott. Scott, since 2011, has been trying to mandate random drug tests for some 85,000 state workers because, yeah, drugs are bad or something. Scotts executive order did not apply only to employees, such as drivers or pilots, whose duties might in fact be severely affected by drug use. Everybody, from receptionists to scuba divers, would be subject. By refusing to reopen the case, the Supreme Court agreed that Scotts order was so broad as to violate Constitutional protections against unwarranted search and seizure.
Scott issued a statement saying state employees should have the right to work in a safe and drug free environment, just like in any other business. The governor noted that portions of the case are still being debated in Miami federal court and that he would continue to fight for expanded employee drug testing despite the Supreme Courts decision not to take up the case.
How Did the Supreme Court Get Involved Anyway?
The interesting thing is that this issue was put on the Supreme Courts doorstep at all. A lower court already conclusively said no, sweeping random drug tests are not Constitutional. Done, next issue please. The state of Florida didnt want to let the tests go, and sought to appeal to the Supreme Court, hoping they might say yes when all the lower courts had already said no. The thing is that lots of people want their cases heard by the Supremes, and so there is a weeding out process. Basically, you have to first ask the Court to take your case. Such asking is done quite formally, via a petition, called a writ of certiorari, or simply a cert. Through the cert process, the court sets its own agenda. Some 10,000 certs are submitted in a typical year.
Typically, fewer than 100 of those 10,000 petitions are chosen to move forward for a possibly precedent-setting decision. However, only a tiny number of all the certs filed are initiated by the government; on average, just 15 in a Supreme Court term. Tough odds. The bottom line is if the Supreme Court chooses not to hear from case, the lower court decision stands. Thats what happened with Florida, and Scott lost. Again.
This ruling effectuates what will ultimately happen when other states move forward with it and are challenged.........