Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1989 to 1994

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. - Significance, Highly Intrusive Searches Should Be Based On Probable Cause

court petitioner respondents violate

Petitioner

Samuel K. Skinner, U.S. Secretary of Transportation

Respondents

Railway Labor Executives' Association, et al.

Petitioner's Claim

That regulations requiring the testing of bodily fluids after a train accident do not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of railroad employees.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Richard Thornburgh, U.S. Attorney General

Chief Lawyer for Respondents

Lawrence M. Mann

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, Anthony M. Kennedy (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

21 March 1989

Decision

Upheld regulations that required railroads to test blood, urine, and breath of employees involved in train accidents, deciding that such tests did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Further Readings

  • Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford Press, 1992.
  • Witt, Elder, ed. The Supreme Court A to Z. CQ's Encyclopedia of American Government. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1993.

Additional Topics

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. - Significance

Although done without a warrant, probable cause, or individualized suspicion, mandatory drug testing of railroad employees was held not to violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches because of the "special need" to ensure the public's safety. In 1985 the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) adopted regulations addressing the problem of alcohol and drug use among railro…

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. - Highly Intrusive Searches Should Be Based On Probable Cause

Justices Marshall and Brennan dissented. Marshall called the government's compulsory collection and testing of blood and urine "a particularly Draconian weapon" in the war on drugs. "Precisely because the need for action against the drug scourge is manifest, the need for vigilance against unconstitutional excess is great." Marshall noted that times of urgency are times of grave threats to liberty,…

Soldal v. Cook County - Significance, Impact, The Plain View Exception [next] [back] Simon Schuster v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board - Significance, Crime For Profit

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or