Latest Headlines
- ECUA Considering Water, Sewer And Sanitation Rate Increases
- Highway 4, Highway 168 Bridges Across North Escambia Remain Closed. Here’s An Update.
- Two-Time Super Bowl Champ Inspires Local Youth Athletes (With Photo Gallery)
- Century Woman Charged With Meth Possession After Traffic Stop
- For Escambia, Alabama, Deputy Charge With Federal Civil Rights Violation
- FWC Law Enforcement Report: Snapper Size, Gopher Tortoises
- These Are This Week’s Road Construction Trouble Spots
- Drone Show Wows Sellout Crowd in 5-1 Wahoos Loss
- Costco Nine Mile Road Plans Set For Development Review Meeting
- Applications Still Open For Pine Beetle Assistance And Prevention Program
Federal Judge Blocks Florida Welfare Recipient Testing
October 25, 2011
The state’s effort to drug-test welfare recipients hit a roadblock Monday, as a federal judge barred the state from following the plan until there’s a final ruling in the case.
U.S. District Court Judge Mary Scriven rejected the state’s arguments that the drug-testing program did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and would instead ensnare thousands of would-be welfare recipients in an impermissible dragnet.
“The constitutional rights of a class of citizens are at stake, and the Constitution dictates that the needs asserted to justify subverting those rights must be special, as the case law defines that term, in order for this exception to the Fourth Amendment to apply,” Scriven wrote. “That showing has not been made on this record.”
Scriven also wrote that the state’s attorneys did not produce “competent evidence that any TANF funds would be saved by instituting a drug testing program.”
Opponents of the drug-testing regimen, which passed during this year’s legislative session and has proven popular in polls, hailed the decision. It came in the case of Luis Lebron, a 35-year-old Orlando resident who applied for benefits in July but refused to take a drug test.
“This should send a message to all lawmakers that the 4th Amendment protects everyone,” said Randall Berg of the Florida Justice Institute, which represented Lebron along with the ACLU of Florida.
Supporters of the measure continued to defend the new law, but said they were trying to decide how to move forward following the judge’s decision.
“Drug testing welfare recipients is just a common-sense way to ensure that welfare dollars are used to help children and get parents back to work,” said Jackie Schutz, deputy press secretary for Gov. Rick Scott. “The governor obviously disagrees with the decision and he will evaluate his options regarding when to appeal.”
“I still believe it’s definitely the right law for Florida and Florida’s children,” said Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Inverness, who sponsored the drug-testing bill in the House.
The decision also threw a fresh spotlight on the Foundation for Government Accountability, a think tank based in Naples that produced a study and said the testing regime had saved the state $1.8 million in the first quarter and could save hundreds of millions of dollars if applied nationwide.
But Scriven slammed the report, saying it made faulty assumptions and “is not competent expert opinion, nor is it offered as such, nor could it be reasonably construed as such.”
Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, specifically applauded Scriven for tackling the study by the foundation, headed by a Scott ally.
“It’s bad enough they’re actually defending this privacy-gutting law,” she said. “But it’s especially troubling when they’re relying on the self-serving musings of the governor’s friend to justify it.”
The foundation’s president and CEO, Tarren Bragdon, fired back.
“Judge Scriven’s ruling against Florida’s drug-testing requirement for taxpayer-funded welfare cash is disappointing, and removes needed accountability from our welfare system,” Bragdon said. “Our analysis of the law shows that the requirement is saving the state millions in welfare benefits, and helps ensure taxpayer dollars are reserved only for the truly needy.”
By The News Service of Florida
Comments
31 Responses to “Federal Judge Blocks Florida Welfare Recipient Testing”
Regarding:
“THEY NEVER TESTED AIG, LEHMAN BROTHERS, AND ALL THE OTHER CROOKS AND CORPORATE GIANTS ON WALL STREET WHEN THEY WERE GIVEN GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS – ALSO KNOWN AS THE BAILOUT?”
Two different governments: federal and State of Florida. The same rules need not apply.
Further, when Presidents Bush and Obama bailed out those corporations, they did not do so for the good of the corporations but rather justified it on how many investors had their life savings tied up in them. That was why they called them “too big to fail;” their failure would hurt millions of innocent people.
This is not to say that the bail out was a good thing or that it wasn’t. I’m not sure. One thing of which I AM certain is that the bail out should have come with strings attached like most government dealings. Instead, the very people who brought the corporations to the brink of disaster were paid large bonuses based on their contracts. Contracts are to be honored but it was silly to give or loan them money to reward those who seem to have been so reckless.
Most of them have returned the money provided already –with interest, so it isn’t like it hurt the people but it isn’t a good thing to do lest people justify future bail outs with “they did it for AIG and Lehman, they should do it for me!”
I doubt any future bailouts will happen without the strings, maybe drug testing SHOULD be a string in case they consider it in the future, test the executives and all their relatives out to the fifth generation rather than take our money and reward reckless actions with it.
David for value
AB
The bailout money you speak of was given to those that would pay “kickbacks” to
the party and individuals in power. This, as well as welfare, is done at the tax
payers’ expense. Welfare is a ploy to keep people under the thumb of certain
political ideals. The democrats comtroled these people in the days before the
1860’s through serfdom. Then thru the KKK, and now they are on plantation
welfare. For the most part, the government provides the means for drug users
in the form of “free money” with no responsibility and all the time in the world to
“do their thing”.
THANKS JUDGE!!!
It would be unjust and unfair to drug test welfare recipients, those getting money from the government for support, when THEY NEVER TESTED AIG, LEHMAN BROTHERS, AND ALL THE OTHER CROOKS AND CORPORATE GIANTS ON WALL STREET WHEN THEY WERE GIVEN GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS – ALSO KNOWN AS THE BAILOUT?
Any sensible individual can see that this is more of a class and socioeconomic issue than it is about anything else.
@Native Tongue- Not everyone that is on welfare is there to “sit on their butt all day watching T.V”or just “popping out babies”. I am not on welfare but I do know people that were there several years ago and, the reason that they were there was because they had fallen on hard times and they were looking for a job the whole time that they were on the program. Don’t accuse everyone of something that is not true.
AND
“having requirements for meeting the criteria of obtaining ‘welfare’ services from government would be arbitrary as well; all should be entitled to it.
“Right?”
I was thinking that too. After all, asking people why they were demanding money seems SOOOOO invasive of privacy. Thus, if they keep it up, folks are less and less likely to support such programs at all and there is nothing forcing their existence.
David for a true safety net
REGARDING:
“Amendments IV, X, and XIV (not articles, but I understand your reference), I would present that having the arbitrary age of 16 for obtaining a driver’s license violates the rights of 15 year olds; the arbitrary age of 21 for drinking violates the rights of 20 year olds; and, the arbitrary age of 18 for voting violates the rights of 16 year olds.”
Article of Amendment Number Four, Article of Amendment Number Ten, Article of Amendment Number 14 but when I mentioned Bill of Rights, that included Articles of Amendment numbers one through ten. I didn’t do it with the 14th, though, so you got me good and proper there. Don’t see how I can wiggle out of that one.
Further, you’re right about the age requirements being age discrimination. Thankfully, so far the courts have agreed we can still discriminate in treatment of minors. Or maybe, sadly, depending on your view toward four year olds voting for county commissioners and presidents or whether crimes against twelve year olds are worse than the same thing against grownups. For that matter, some of the age limits are written into the Constitution so they are constitutional by definition, others maybe not so much so.
David discussing framework of government
and concepts thereof
@ Hmm
Sorry you got caught in our unfair system. That is one thing we should
correct is how long it takes the American Govenment to just do the
right thing. It sure doesn’t take them long to do the wrong thing to many
times, remember the raises they wanted that they themselves voted
for in the middle of the night?
This get me however, when working people must pee in a cup at an
employers demand and we do it, but welfare people are above all that,
and it would be against their constitutional rights. Har Har Har!
they tried this in michigan a few years back and it didnt pass the constitution test and it doesnt pass now. dont know what scott was/is thinking on this one….oh wait….solantek….you know that little medical facility that his wife owns stock in that among other things processes drug tests…got an idea re: people getting drug tested before they get paid. start with scott and drug test ever single politician in the state of florida and they must pay for the test themselves, if they pass they can continue to lead florida into the future…how bout that?
@Hmm,
Thank you for your service. You are, indeed, entitled to benefits from every available source, depending on your needs.
You are not one whom most would feel is getting undeserved benefits.
You must, however, understand the frustration at those who are paying property tax, automobile license fees (taxes), taxes on utilities, income taxes, and other similar taxes to various governments to the point of living on a very restricted budget only to see someone walk past them in a grocery line with a buggy full of food, see them pay with a government hand-out, get into a nice car and leave. It is disheartening to see someone who could work, but won’t because they can’t/won’t be able to pass a drug test get free utilities or free medical benefits, free child care and weeks of unemployment. All the time, many are working to pay bills and taxes in order to keep people who have learned to manipulate the system and are undeserved.
I myself wonder why I have strived to be successful and work my way up the old ladder, go to college (oh yeah, student loan to pay back, now) and work hard to establish a lifestyle. I have wondered many times why I just don’t join them and hang out and enjoy life.
Not to say there aren’t people who are deserving of social help; to those I have no qualm. It is to those who have learned to manipulate and are getting away with the equivalent of fraud. It is to those who will take social benefits and abuse them and support a drug or alcohol problem. Those are the ones many resent. Those are the ones many, like me, resent paying taxes for.
Many of those are ones who will vote to increase sales tax or property tax or some other tax but have no skin in the game. Why should someone who doesn’t pay taxes get to vote on them?
Someone like yourself, Hmm, need not be concerned, the posting of many on this board on subjects like this aren’t aimed to persons like yourself.
Well drug testing is a great way to cut back on welfare support. There are those who will chose drugs over support.Keep the test private,but the system should not be use for those on illegal drugs. That is not its purpose. So if you need the money, take the test. Like they say, if your clean whats the problem? Nobody likes to be drug tested, it seem as if the are calling you guilt before they know you, But the working mass’es must take drug test, and those receiving free support are no different. Free ride is over with.
WOW!!! There are some really intelligent(and really ignorant) opinions on this one. I’ll only comment on one, for now, though.
@RC: I am a disabled veteran. I returned home from the Army at 22 years old, after serving 6 years of active duty and being deployed to Bosnia and the Middle East. I lived off of less than $400 per month for almost 4 years before VA finally granted me a 100% percent disability rating and waited another 4 years before Social Security granted me the disability I was entitled to. Due to my income sources, I no longer pay income taxes. Are you saying I shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Better yet, I submit to you that we all DO pay taxes. Any person who purchases any item not exempt from sales tax pays taxes, including those under the age of 18, so perhaps we should just lower the voting age.
Note: During the time I made so little, I was never allowed to draw unemployment or welfare or food stamps. I was always told that I was ineligible because I made too much money from VA. I now know that wasn’t true, but it didn’t matter then.
@David,
Just for the sake of argument, your point of mentioning the Amendments IV, X, and XIV (not articles, but I understand your reference), I would present that having the arbitrary age of 16 for obtaining a driver’s license violates the rights of 15 year olds; the arbitrary age of 21 for drinking violates the rights of 20 year olds; and, the arbitrary age of 18 for voting violates the rights of 16 year olds.
Utilizing the same argument, having requirements for meeting the criteria of obtaining ‘welfare’ services from government would be arbitrary as well; all should be entitled to it.
Right?
Thier should be a law that all liberals should have to register and if you want to support taking tax money from anybody then it should come out of there payroll taxes. Some people need help to back on there feet. And to some they are lazy and will never work and have to be fed buy the tax payer. In the last three years people on welfare has realy went up. Just like the price of gas. Bush has been out of office going on three years and its still his problem. HOW IS THIS HOPIE CHANGEY THING WORKING OUT.
Why shouldn’t recipients test to get their benefits? What this ungrateful Navy veteran forgets is that he had to test in the Navy to get his “benefit” of staying in the military. He didn’t complain much then, did he?
This is NOT to say that all recipients are druggies, I know quite a few hard-working, upstanding people that need and are receiving assistance. However, they do not treat receiving benefits as a career choice, either.
There are those that pass their knowledge of how to work the system from generation to generation, thereby perpetuating the problem.
All of you squawkers whining about rights……I, as a taxpayer, have the right to know that my money will not be wasted.
However, I DO agree that these tests, as with any medical record, should be kept confidential. They should NOT be passed on to law enforcement or other agencies.
The ONLY way to END welfare is for ALL of US WORKING AMERICANS to stop working for awhile, and lets see how far welfare really goes!! I’m tired of working for lazy sorry drug addicts to live freely!! Welfae is there to HELP those who are trying to HELP themselves, not make a career of it! Watch them in the stores….they buy crap such as candy, chips, junk food instead of real food to feed their kids. And with the money they get, they buy all kinds of lottery tickets and booze. It absoultly floors me to know that I work my tail off to support these loosers!!!!!!
AND REGARDING:
“All this judge wants is votes from the recepent class.”
AND
“Let’s get this judge voted off the bench while we are at it.”
Actually, federal judges do not seek votes to stay in office and can’t be voted off the bench by us. They can be removed by impeachment only. Under the Constitution they are there as long as they avoid bad behaviour.
Article II
Section 4
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
In this case, federal judges come under the heading of “civil officers”.
As far as being voted off the bench:
Article III
Section 1
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
The key part here being: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,”
So they aren’t looking for votes to stay in office. They got that already.
David for perfect judges
REGARDING:
“Someone show me where welfare is supported by the constitution.”
Just for the challenge:
Article [X]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Therefore, under the Constitution of the United States of America, the states retain the POWER to do anything not ceded to the Federal Government or forbidden to the states. Therefore, under the US Constitution, states have the power to form support for the needy if they so choose. Nothing forces the states to do so, but they have that power.
If they choose to form some type of support for the needy, they must comply with the Constitution. For example, under Article XIV
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In part, this means the rights listed in the bill of rights are extended to citizens under lesser governments such as state, county, city.
One of these is Article [IV]
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
I don’t think this really applies in this case, but the federal judge seems to believe it does.
If it does, the testing can’t be required to receive benefits without a warrant and reasonable suspicion.
Someone show me where welfare is supported by the constitution. All this judge wants is votes from the recepent class. The way we can stop this kind of nonsence is to only allow those that pay taxes the right to vote.
That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard of. Now they can continue to do drugs, sell drugs, and even exchange their benefits for drugs. Not to mention the ones that honestly need the help can’t get it because they make a dollar over their minimum….sad! You have thugs out there that refuse to get a real job, but the state will hand out millions for them and their families and allow them to continue to spit out children.
@Everett-I like your idea about postponing any payments until the case is resolved; however, we can’t vote on Federal judges, they are appointed.
Where does the federal court obtain jurisdiction over a state matter?
@Kathy-you’re right about privately held companies and government interference; but, I believe you’re wrong on this premise: If one is going to participate in a government-run program, one must comply with the rules set forth by that government, would you agree? There are rules regarding obtaining a driver’s license, right? There are rules regarding licensing an automobile, or establishing residency voting, too, right?
Don’t confuse Tea Party supporters with Republicans. The Tea Party is conservatively grounded on small government and more individual/state rights. Republicans and Democrats are one in the same, now; their goal is to demonize the Tea Party until it becomes an entity with negative connotations, not unlike the communist party used to be. They are both socialist; just to what degree is the only question.
People with JOBS have to take drug testing whenever asked or lose their job.Why should our money go to help support someone that doesn’t have a job and most of the time isn’t concerned with having one who doesn’t have to take a drug test at all?But of course once again that’s how wonderful our government is.Thanks.If they were honest people they wouldn’t mind the testing and it wouldn’t be such an issue.But of course they are collecting for themselves and the three kids down the street and don’t forget to add lil Suzy and her five brothers over on the next street.
Amen Everett.
@Kathy – Dude, it’s time to grow up and deal with your emotional issues.
My not wanting to pay for some lazy person to sit on their behind watching TV all day and popping out babies isn’t in any way related to your orange soda feigning siblings.
For once I agree with Everett and I will ad if they get welfare they should be
made to earn it, by painting graffiti, or buildings or cleaning up garbage.
Color me for NO FREE RIDE!
How far would I get if I declined to take a random drug test at work? I can tell you.
I wouldn’t be allowed to work until I did submit to testing. My unemployeement
benifits would be declined and I would not be elligable for government assistance(welfare) because I brought my unemployement on myself by refusing
to be tested. I seem to recall a word used by liberals quite a bit “discrimenation”
I think. Apparently, the meaning of this word changes with each cituation that
arises and is always in favor of anyone except the working tax payers. Also known as the “working middle class”.
True, many people are hard pressed and need help. These people wouldn’t, or
shouldn’t mind drug testing. The complainers are the ones who don’t and wont
work and use drugs frequently. With 18% of the people in this country using
food stamps( that’s almost 1 in 5) the working tax payer cannot aford deadbeats
and they should be screened out. However, working class, don’t expect help
from liberal politicians as these deadbeats are their base and they keep them in
office.
Since when did a welfare or assistance check become a right?
You jump through hoops to get on welfare, trust me I did, but just pee in a dang cup..we are not all low lifes some of us just hit bad circumstances…you have to job search and the system is designed to help you better yourself and get a job and get back out there and provide for yourself…YES many take advantage, but not all of us. I used the help to take care of my child and get out there and find a job when imagine that I had to take a drug test….@jp if they had to do at least 40hrs community service a week there wouldn’t be a lot of time to care for their children and find jobs…Any ways I am all for the drug testing to get rid of the ones taking advantage of the system but don’t judge all welfare recipients based on the ones taking advantage…if they took our welfare away until the courts make their decision you would have many more hungry homeless people and many more kids on the streets
I totally agree with Everett. That is the only fair way to protect both sides and also
assure the higher courts will act promptly. It probably would also cause a large
decrease in the state population.
As far as the courts are concerned, they have no problem with restricting gun
ownership to law abiding citizens until they have been investigated. So what is
the problem here?
The state didn’t finish the requirements of this bill. They should require able-
bodied welfare receivers to perform at least 40hours of community service for
each week they receive benefits.
You got to love ignorance!! First of all privately held companies are not the government investigating your bodily fluids. Secondly, all the tea party idiots and republicans scream about government interference into one private life. Well this is what it is and you think its great obviously you cannot be either one of them. You remind of when I was small and had polio I had to go to clinic some 80 miles from my house over dirt roads in the heat of summer no car air conditioning and sit there at clinic for many long hours while being barely three years old. They would twist and turn me, x-ray me and spinal tap me and then cast my legs. On the way home we might stop for a bite and a drink. One time I got home with a orange ring around my mouth and my brothers and sister threw a fit it wasn’t fair she got orange soda. They picked at me pinched me, struck me and screamed at me for hours. You sound the same immature and so afraid that someone might of got something that you didn’t. Poverty is not something anyone should want anyone to suffer. GROW UP!!
“The constitutional rights of a class of citizens are at stake”. If this is the case then those employers who are drug testing their employees, “a class of citizens”, are also in violation.
Not sure what the world is coming to. The ACLU, is that another acronym for SEIU? When companies require drug testing to get a job, if you want the job you provide a sample. While in the military, you are ordered to provide a urine sample….not in the comfort of a private clinic room, but in the presents of a witness, “have to watch the urine leave the body and enter the receptacle.” I know the erosion of civil liberties is a slippery slope, but some things need to pass the stupid test, and the blocking of this action is STUPID. The only item people have to fear is failing the test. If you have nothing to hide, why all of a sudden are you trying to hide inside the Constitution?
“The state’s effort to drug-test welfare recipients hit a roadblock Monday, as a federal judge barred the state from following the plan until there’s a final ruling in the case.”
To keep the system fair let’s postpone any welfare payments until there is a final ruling. This could go on for years.
Let’s get this judge voted off the bench while we are at it.