Latest Headlines
- Early Morning Stabbing In Cantonment Under Investigation
- Escambia School Grades Released. See How Your Child’s School Scored.
- Bond Set For Cottage Hill Man Charged With Threatening To Kill Local Magistrate
- Cottage Hill Man Charged With Threatening To Kill Local Magistrate
- Five WaWa Stores In The Works For Escambia County. Here’s The List.
- Baldwin County Road 112 Closure To Impact Drivers From Escambia County
- Five Arrested On Drug Charges In Atmore
- Ascension Sacred Heart Pensacola Designated As Only Level One Trauma Center In Panhandle
- Tate Aggies Volleyball Attends Florida Gators Camp
- Blue Wahoos Seize Big Inning, Sink Shuckers To End Four-Game Slide
Federal Judge Rules Against Drug Testing Welfare Applicants
January 2, 2014
A federal judge has ruled that a 2011 law requiring welfare applicants to undergo drug tests is unconstitutional, striking a blow to Gov. Rick Scott’s administration over the controversial tests.
Scott quickly said he would appeal U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven’s Tuesday ruling, the latest defeat for the governor in a drawn-out battle over drug testing some of the state’s poorest residents.
Scriven ruled that the urine tests violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
In a harshly worded, 30-page opinion, Scriven concluded that “there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied.”
Scott, who used the mandatory drug tests as a campaign issue, insists that the urine tests are needed to make sure poor children don’t grow up in drug-riddled households.
“Any illegal drug use in a family is harmful and even abusive to a child. We should have a zero tolerance policy for illegal drug use in families — especially those families who struggle to make ends meet and need welfare assistance to provide for their children. We will continue to fight for Florida children who deserve to live in drug-free homes by appealing this judge’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals,” Scott said in a statement after Tuesday’s ruling.
At Scott’s urging in 2011, the Legislature passed the law requiring all applicants seeking Temporary Assistance for Needy Families” — the “poorest of the poor” — to undergo the urine tests. Applicants had to pay for the tests, which cost about $35, up front and were to have been reimbursed if they did not test positive.
Within months after the law was passed, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida sued the state on behalf of Luis Lebron, a Navy veteran and single father. In October 2011, Scriven issued a preliminary order putting the law on hold. Scott appealed the decision but in February, an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel agreed with Scriven, ruling that the drug tests amounted to an unreasonable search by government. Scott later requested a full court review of the case but was turned down.
In her Tuesday ruling, Scriven relied heavily on the 11th Circuit opinion, which cited previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings that restricted urine tests by government agencies to employees working at dangerous jobs or in jobs where schoolchildren were involved.
Scott’s lawyers argued that TANF recipients should be considered a “special interest” exception to the Fourth Amendment. The tests are needed to ensure TANF participants’ job readiness, help the social welfare program meets its goals and guarantee that the public money is used for its intended purpose and not spent on drugs.
But Scriven criticized the expert witnesses, testimony and evidence the state used to defend the law.
“In sum, there simply is no competent evidence offered on this record of the sort of pervasive drug problem the State envisioned in the promulgation of this statute,” she wrote.
The state failed to show that TANF recipients used drugs with more frequency than the rest of the population, Scriven found. But even if it had, creating a special class of people who would be exempt from the constitutional protections could be dangerous, she wrote.
“If persons in an economic demographic could be shown to have a higher rate of drug use, would all such persons in that economic group be subjected to drug testing? Even if such suspicionless testing as proposed by the State were limited to those persons receiving state funds, would college students receiving governmental assistance to subsidize their education, for example, be subjected to random, suspicionless drug testing if it could be shown that drug use is demonstrably higher among college students? The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment precedent would suggest not,” Scriven wrote.
Scriven’s decision “is a sound rejection of the evidence that the state presented to the district court in its attempt to establish that TANF applicants used drugs at a higher rate than the general population,” said ACLU of Florida Associate Legal Director Florida Maria Kayanan, the lead attorney on the case.
She called Scott’s promised appeal “a waste of the state’s time and taxpayer’s money” but said “they certainly have the right to an appeal.”
Comments
41 Responses to “Federal Judge Rules Against Drug Testing Welfare Applicants”
Amen Luis and Henry Coe. I work full time and also go to school. I just barely miss the qualifications on the gross income but by time I pay health insurance etc I have a lot less in paycheck. But because of the gross then I don’t qualify. I’m required to have car insurance so I can have a car to get me back and forth to my job but that is not taken into account. Guess I could drive illegally but I chose to be legal. I could also choose to sit on my butt all day but I choose to better myself and work. Not everyone on food stamps is lazy, drug users. So don’t lump everyone in that catergory. I think if you work and are drug tested then welfare people should be tested too but if you don’t have to pay for the drug test when applying for a job then how can you say that welfare people should have to pay for their test? Another point to this debate…..should children whose parents are drug users be denied food? Its not the child’s fault their parents are sorry. Are you going to make them go hungry? Figure something out to get the parents off drugs but feed the kids!! Don’t make them suffer.
This country gives billions of dollars in foriegn aid without requiring Drug testing. Why test our own citizens?
@GST–You may wish to check the history of the “free phone”. It started out as “Life Line” for people who did not have phones. The program was started by REAGAN not Obama. In 2012 due to so many cell phones being involved and being misused the Obama administration ordered that it be revised and only those who needed the “free phone” receive one. There are limits on the amount of time. Some times a person may give the phone to someone that shouldn’t have it. Do you recall the “food program” where you could receive free cheese, butter and so on. Latter these items showed being sold. No system is fail safe.
Appeal Rick Scott on the grounds of discrimination. The working ” clean” folks are being taken advantage of by being tested and the welfare people aren’t. If they are clean, what’s the fuss?
Is there any promise in the Constitution that the government will provide assistance to individuals when they fall on hard times? Is there any promise in the Constitution that we, the tax payers must provide compensation and insurance to all former Senators and Congressmen? We do these things because some one fought for them. Why then don’t we fight for limitations on funding? We can scream and vent forever over this issue, but if we don’t make a stand, we’ve still done nothing. I personally agree with drug testing. I have been drug tested with every job I’ve ever had, as it was a condition of employment. If you receive government aid, it should be required as condition of disbursement. They always ask if you take any meds to disclose those at the time of your test.
I have to take drug tests to get My paycheck and I am working , why shouldnt these people have to take one for their food stamps and money…explain that one.
It’s a heck of a note that most people with DECENT jobs have to drug test as a condition of employment. Fire, Police, Truck Drivers, Welders Military, and the list goes on are jobs that require testing, yet we can’t drug test welfare recipients. Drug testing probably would give some of them the incentive to get off the couch and the crack pipe and look for a job
@Mark Allen…I certainly hope that you meant that condescendingly and with much sarcasm…if not…do you personally have issues with drug testing…I have worked in the private sector and have undergone drug testing…it had NOTHING to do with insurance of my employer…I would be happy to take a test at anytime b/c I have nothing to hide…..just my opinion.
to “E”
I understand that some veterans to get assistance and some drugs that would cause them to test positive on a test. I am a Vet as well, I receive a disability as well as my retirement for 23 years of service. During that time frame, I had to paticipate and observe drug testing many time. All I am saying is level the playing field.
so if drug testing is unconstitutional, an invasion of privacy..do away with it altogether
It’s truly amazing how bigoted so many of the comments are against those living below poverty with absolutely no statistical data to support the claims being made and without any regard to what it would actually cost the state to pay for drug testing that would probably create the need for a tax increase.
I’ve yet to see one person say they are willing to pay more in taxes to cover this cost.
I’m also amazed by the lack of concern for constitutional precedence that would be set, that would affect everyone’s right to privacy or the loss of rights when it comes to search and seizure liberty issues protected by the 4th Amendment.
It is explained very well in the article.
If you ever took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and you grasp the idea that the Constitution belongs to each of us equally, understanding these principles should matter to you.
The need for food assistance is already greater than SNAP can fill.
SNAP benefits don’t last most participants the whole month. 90% of SNAP benefits are redeemed by the third week of the month, and 58% of food bank clients currently receiving SNAP benefits turn to food banks for assistance at least 6 months out of the year.[x]
The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person, per meal. [xi]
Only 57% of food insecure individuals are income-eligible for SNAP, and 26% are not income-eligible for any federal food assistance.[xii]
read more at
http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/programs-and-services/public-assistance-programs/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program/snap-myths-realities.aspx
zb If the rich you are talking about are not getting my tax dollars from welfare I could care less but if they are drug test them. But if they are getting welfare of any kind they should be tested. A lot of them are already getting free Obama phones that we are paying for.
Very smart Judge !!
If I could get frequent flyer miles for UAs, I’ll be able to fly anywhere. As a merchant seaman I get checked pre employment, randomly, post accident and every time I renew my license. I got tested one day and again the next. Do I enjoy these tests? no, not really, it’s an inconvenience, a waste of work time and nobody fails. But, I say that if we test welfare recipients because they get “our” tax money, we should also test the politicians and law makers who also get “our” tax money for coming up with these lame brained ideas. I say “our” money because once we pay the tax it becomes the governments money and it’s gone for good on some frivolous pork project that doesn’t benefit anyone except the politician. Whats next, mandatory background checks? mandatory DNA tests? Mandatory organ donor cards? or how about sterilization for all welfare recipients, when will it stop.
@ Henry Coe you are so right but people never think about that.
“If persons in an economic demographic could be shown to have a higher rate of drug use, would all such persons in that economic group be subjected to drug testing? Even if such suspicionless testing as proposed by the State were limited to those persons receiving state funds, would college students receiving governmental assistance to subsidize their education, for example, be subjected to random, suspicionless drug testing if it could be shown that drug use is demonstrably higher among college students? The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment precedent would suggest not,”
That says it all right there, I’m not sure why the State of Florida wastes time trying to pass such rules and then fighting them in court. All of this is just for show and waste tax payer money
The reason I am for testing welfare recepients is the fact that some of them (not all of them) apparently can afford all the bells and whistles that go along with assistance. I wonder, where does the money for all those cell phones, cigarettes and beer come from? They can buy it BECAUSE they get assistance. Same with the drugs. Without the assistance, they’d have to use their own money to buy groceries, as they should. Some folks are legitimate welfare receipients. Most are bogging down the system with their non-intentions to work. They need to be out! If drug testing will help to overhaul this abuse-ridden system, I’m all for it. And, yes, I do get drug tested where I work!
Just a bit overboard there JimD….A great many veterans on disability are prescribed medications that will test positive. Do you propose that they be disqualified for taking those medications many of us would rather not, but are unable to get around without? Also, I do not consider it “federal aid or assistance”, we already paid for it.
@E. You can’t vote for this judge. She and all U.S. District Judges are appointed by the President and approved by the Congress.
They are appointed for life, and may resign, or be removed for due cause, ie; criminal activity, or severe malfeasance in office. They can’t be voted out.
lets face it drugs is a problem from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich. I say hey lets just drug test everybody in the state top to bottom.lets start testing for everything from goin to the grocery store for food to stopping for some gas?point is drug use happens everywhere wether u r poor or rich.just dont pic on the poor because its everywhere!
Of course none of us working people are surprised. Same ole same ole. We work and pay for all the welfare recipients that just keep popping kids out left and right and then encourage their children to do the same. That way they can all stay at home and live off my money. I have to be drug tested in order to work to pay your taxes you sorry bums-you should have to do the same to collect it!!
Judge Mary Scriven would require soldiers sent into harms way and most any other person seeking employment to under go testing yet not a welfare recipient. I think that is stupid. Appeal it Rick Scott.
The examples that U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven gives….
“If persons in an economic demographic could be shown to have a higher rate of drug use, would all such persons in that economic group be subjected to drug testing? Even if such suspicionless testing as proposed by the State were limited to those persons receiving state funds, would college students receiving governmental assistance to subsidize their education, for example, be subjected to random, suspicionless drug testing if it could be shown that drug use is demonstrably higher among college students?
Yes, it seems like all the College Guidance Counselors want kids to do now is fill out their FSA forms, (doesn’t matter if they qualify or not….each College still gets funding from the government on each application). Use some of that money to pay for drug testing when they sign up for school too.
I say if you are getting any type of federal aid or assistance i.e. Student Loan, VA disability, SNAP, even assistance on paying electric and gas payments from the local/state or federial government…..you should have to submit to a drug testing program.
One thing is a fact if your job requires you to have a “CDL” drivers license you are going to be drug tested by the state and that has nothing to do with insurance.And if you don’t have a license you don’t work there. Also if your living off my dollar and can work not just paying taxes with my tax money get a job! Put money back into the system instead of taking all the time!
You don’t have to get drug tested at your job. That is a misconception. For insurance reasons your employer may drug test, but you still have to accept getting drug tested in order to get that job. It is your choice.
That being said, you getting drug testes at your place of employment for insurance reasons, is about your employer, their insurance company and your desire to work there. It doesn’t have to do with anything else.
With that said, much of the people getting food stamps have paid taxes. I paid taxes for 30 years when I could work and I still pay property taxes, yet I have no kids who have ever gone to public school and it is unlikely that I ever will.
I don’t want people taking their kids to school so they can sit around and do drugs all day so I want people who have kids in public school to be drug tested before their kids attend.
@ poli- his wife is a major stock in the testing company. I liked the law except the part where the person being tested had to pay for the test– if they came back clean the state would pay for it later. if you are on welfare waiting for the state could be a long wait for “the check in the mail”
At some point, you have to figure out why folks need government assistance. If you are disabled, no problem.
If you refuse to educate yourself, refuse to work hard, commit crimes or take drugs, then we have a problem. If you can not run your own life without the constant help of the governemt, then maybe the government should intrude on your life.
DA*N LIBERALS, they will screw the working man everytime so that their base supporters can have money, Every working person includinr the military get tested, but welfare people is another story, they are a special class of people and i should be ashamed of having a job and working.
I hope I have read this correctly. The reason for ruling against this was the lawmakers passed a bill that does violate their rights instead of one that is the same as what working people have to abide by. The bill was passed on the premise that more welfare recipients are on drugs than working people. It should have been passed on the premise that just like working people who have to take a drug test to get a job welfare recipients should have to take one. If I was a gambler my bet would be they knew it wouldn’t stand up in court. Just Just wondering??????
Sometimes the court system just gets caught in the middle or can’t decide if something is good for the Goose but not for the Gander. The ruling that certain workers be drug tested (and I was one of them) was passed by Federal Judges. Now when its suspicioned that some Folk on Welfare use drugs etc. and has allowed receiving Welfare to be a way of life. Correct me if I am wrong, but we are now well into three generations and probably starting into the forth generation of the same family relatives receiving Welfare. Welfare is just like unemployment–created for a temporary fix, not permanent. It seems that the Government Dole has made it too easy to JUST DO NOTHING. Once on the system, Many just find ways to stay there. Its too easy with too flimsy reasons to get Welfare. I believe that Welfare receptive Folk should be Drug tested.
“Scriven ruled that the urine tests violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.”
I work for the govt and get drugged screened all the time; what a waste of money and I guess a violation of my 4th amendment.
There has to be a legal way to overcome this ruling. when we apply for work, we give consent to be drug tested. WELL, just make that consent part of the welfare process. This isn’t a difficult concept, but apparently wasn’t considered very well. Oh, and while we’re at it, birth control. Yes, I said it, let’s have the women on birth control, or them men consent to vasectomies.
fire the bad judge
Does this mean that drug testing for employees/potential employees is unconstitutional as well? I have to work, some of my pay goes to “help” the unemployed on welfare, if it is unconstitutional to test them, why is it legal for me to be tested to keep my job????? Since when did the constitutional work against hard working Americans?
Perhaps gst, it is because those of us that believe in working and providing for our families do not vote for these liberal redistributing judges. It used to be a hand up, now turned hand out. It used to be temporary, now turned profession. Scriven says it’s ok to test those that work where schoolchildren were involved but NOT where schoolchildren are being raised by dopers. Another dolt that needs to be removed.
I think its fair to make them take drug test. After all it is our tax money paying for their assistance in the first place. Not only that, if u can afford to buy drugs, u can afford to buy ur child/children food. This is very biased on the governments part. There are people who lie on their application for assistance just so they don’t have to pay for nothing. Yet they drive brand new vehicles and look presentable everytime they go in the office. Why are these people not being noticed? The ones in need ‘the poorest of the poor’ can’t receive help because of the fact of telling the truth. Yet liars get assistance? I think the drug testing is very necessary. However I feel they shouldn’t have to pay for test. The government should, and anyone who fails to comply & fails the drug test should lose their assistance.
Rick Scott owns the drug testing ….
Then companies that test for drugs should not be allowed to either. I work and the welfare folks don’t , but it is illegal to drug test them?
but of COURSE a federal judge ruled against it. Otherwise a large number of the current administrations supporters would be losing their freebie’s due to using illegal drugs. You see, they can afford the drugs, but can’t afford to buy food or get a place to stay on their own. It’s amazing to me how I have to do random urinalysis to get/stay employed but they have to do less than nothing for a handout and sit on their butts all day long. Thanks again to our wonderful judicial system for making the moral majority so proud.
I don’t understand why the ones paying for welfare have to be drug tested so we give our taxes to people who don’t want to work. But heres another case where the justice system screwed up again