Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1997

Chandler v. Miller

520 U.S. 305 | 117 S. Ct. 1295 | 137 L. Ed. 2d 513 | 1997 U.S. LEXIS 2505

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a State cannot impose suspicionless drug testing on candidates for public office merely to promote an anti-drug message; it must show a concrete, substantial special need that makes departure from the Fourth Amendment’s usual suspicion requirement reasonable.

Background

Georgia required candidates for specified state offices to submit a certificate showing that, within 30 days before qualifying for the ballot, they had tested negative for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidines. A candidate could provide the urine specimen at an approved laboratory or at the candidate’s own physician’s office. The result was initially reported to the candidate, who controlled any further disclosure.

Libertarian Party nominees Walker Chandler, Sharon Harris, and James Walker challenged the law under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought to appear on the 1994 ballot for Lieutenant Governor, Commissioner of Agriculture, and the General Assembly. The District Court denied preliminary relief and later entered judgment for Georgia on stipulated facts. The candidates complied with the testing requirement and appeared on the ballot.

A divided Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It held that the State’s interest in ensuring the judgment, integrity, and public trustworthiness of officeholders outweighed the limited privacy intrusion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the case was moot because the 1994 election had ended.

Holding

No. The controversy remained live because Chandler represented that he intended to run for covered state office again, and Georgia did not dispute that representation.

Reasoning

Although the particular election had passed and the challengers had not brought a class action, Chandler stated to the Court that he planned to seek office again. That asserted future candidacy supplied a continuing personal stake in the validity of Georgia’s recurring ballot-access requirement, so the Court rejected the Government’s mootness suggestion.

Issue #2

Whether Georgia’s authority to prescribe qualifications for state office permits greater deference to its suspicionless drug-testing requirement.

Holding

No. A State’s broad power to set qualifications for state office does not lessen the Fourth Amendment’s constraints on state action.

Reasoning

Georgia relied on its sovereign authority, recognized in cases such as Gregory v. Ashcroft, to establish conditions for holding state office. The Court agreed that States generally have substantial latitude in this area, but stressed that state qualifications for office must still comply with basic constitutional protections.

The Court found no basis for treating the State’s candidate-qualification power as an exception to ordinary Fourth Amendment doctrine. Like the State’s power to prosecute crime, its power to regulate candidacy cannot diminish the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.

Issue #3

Whether Georgia may require candidates for designated state offices to pass a drug test without individualized suspicion.

Holding

No. Georgia’s candidate drug-testing requirement was an unreasonable suspicionless search under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because the State failed to establish a sufficiently substantial special need.

Reasoning

Compelled collection and chemical testing of a urine sample is a search under the Fourth Amendment. Ordinarily, a search requires individualized suspicion; a suspicionless search is permissible only in limited settings where a special need beyond ordinary law enforcement makes individualized suspicion impracticable and the governmental interest outweighs the privacy intrusion.

The Court distinguished Skinner, Von Raab, and Vernonia. Those cases involved concrete and substantial risks: drug- and alcohol-related rail safety hazards, Customs officers working directly in drug interdiction or carrying firearms, and an immediate student drug crisis involving athletes. In each setting, the testing program was tied to identifiable dangers and suspicion-based testing would have undermined the program’s objectives.

Georgia had reduced the test’s intrusiveness by allowing testing at a candidate’s physician’s office and by giving the candidate initial control over disclosure of the results. But a relatively modest intrusion could not itself justify abandoning the normal requirement of individualized suspicion; the State still had to demonstrate a substantial special need.

Georgia offered no evidence that its elected officials had a drug-abuse problem, or that drug use by candidates posed an actual, rather than speculative, danger to the State’s governmental operations or public safety. A documented drug problem is not invariably required, but its absence left Georgia’s broad assertions about impaired judgment, corruption, and public distrust unsupported by concrete facts.

The program was also poorly designed to detect or deter illicit drug use. Candidates knew when the test would occur and could schedule it within the 30 days before qualifying, allowing all but the most severely addicted users to abstain long enough to avoid detection. Georgia neither showed that severely addicted persons were likely to seek office nor explained why ordinary law enforcement could not address unlawful conduct by them.

Von Raab did not control because Customs officers occupied uniquely sensitive positions involving drug interdiction, firearms, contraband, and demonstrated risks of bribery. Candidates for elected office, by contrast, are already subject to unusually intense scrutiny from voters, the press, and political opponents. They also generally do not perform the high-risk, safety-sensitive tasks that justified testing in the earlier cases.

At bottom, Georgia’s asserted interest was symbolic: the State wished to display its opposition to illegal drugs and assure voters that candidates would be drug-free. A desire to set a good example or project commitment to drug enforcement is not a special need sufficient to override Fourth Amendment protections. The Constitution does not permit the State to diminish personal privacy merely for that symbolic purpose.

Dissents

Chief Justice Rehnquist

Reasoning

Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the Court improperly transformed the special-needs doctrine into an excessively demanding threshold requirement. In his view, Skinner and Von Raab treated a governmental purpose beyond ordinary law enforcement as a special need and then called for the familiar balance between that purpose and the individual’s privacy interest. Georgia’s interest in preventing illegal drug users from becoming high state officials was, he believed, a legitimate non-law-enforcement purpose that should have triggered balancing rather than invalidation.

He rejected the majority’s insistence on evidence of an existing drug problem among Georgia officeholders. Drug abuse is a widespread social problem, and the State need not wait until a drug user becomes Governor or another high official before adopting a preventive measure. Von Raab, he maintained, likewise allowed Customs testing without evidence of a particular drug problem within that agency.

The Chief Justice viewed the privacy intrusion as negligible. Candidates could provide their specimens at their own doctors’ offices, and the testing procedures limited disclosure. He criticized the majority for treating the test’s advance notice as a flaw while implying that a more effective random test would be criticized as overly intrusive.

In his view, illegal drug use by high-level state officials creates serious risks of impaired judgment, bribery, and blackmail, at least comparable to the concerns recognized for Customs employees in Von Raab. He also reasoned that officials such as a Governor or Lieutenant Governor may handle highly sensitive information, which further supported the reasonableness of testing.

Finally, he maintained that Georgia’s status as the first State to impose this candidacy condition was constitutionally irrelevant. States may experiment with new measures so long as those measures are reasonable under the Constitution, and he would have held this limited drug-testing requirement reasonable and affirmed the Eleventh Circuit.