DLRP Past Cases

U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES

Free Speech of Doctors Protected on Medical Marijuana

Walters v. Conant, a class-action suit brought by the DPLP, the ACLU of Northern California, and the Drug Policy Alliance, challenged an attempt by the federal government to punish doctors who recommend medical marijuana to their patients following passage of Proposition 215, which made it legal for patients to grow and possess marijuana for medical use when recommended by a doctor. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals established that a physician's evaluation of the risks and benefits of medical marijuana and his or her discussion with patients is constitutionally protected speech and that the federal government could not revoke the licenses of doctors who do so. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the federal government's appeal and let the Ninth Circuit ruling stand. Walters v. Conant.

DPLP Argues Against Student Testing Before Supreme Court:

The DPLP argued in Tecumseh Board of Education v. Earls that students have the right to be free from random, unannounced, and suspicionless drug testing. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of drug testing students who participate in all competitive extra-curricular activities. Tecumseh Board of Education v. Earls.

Medical Marijuana Before the Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a two-part decision in U.S.A. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones: first, the Court ruled against any medical marijuana exception under federal law, based on a finding by Congress that marijuana has no medical usage, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Court, however, did support the argument submitted by the DPLP in its amicus brief that federal judges should have the discretion to choose not to shut down medical marijuana distribution clubs operating in states that have passed medical marijuana initiatives. U.S.A. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones.

ACLU Fights Against Eviction of the Innocent from Public Housing

In U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal government's ""one strike and you're out"" drug policy for low-income housing project tenants, ruling that a public housing tenant could be evicted if any family member or guest was caught using illegal drugs, even if the tenant tried to stop the drug use or was unaware of it. Although the ACLU filed an amicus brief with the court outlining the constitutional violations of the policy, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Congress had, ""unambiguously"" intended to evict innocent tenants from public housing, and that the law was indeed constitutional. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker.

FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Congress Passes Unconstitutional Amendment Censoring Ads Promoting Marijuana Law Reform

In the case ACLU v. Mineta, the DPLP, the ACLU of the National Capital Area, and a coalition of national drug policy reform groups have challenged the constitutionality of a federal amendment passed by Congress in 2004 that threatens to withhold all federal funding from local transit authorities that display advertisements promoting drug policy reform. The lawsuit claims that the new law violates the First Amendment right of political expression by censoring messages advocating a change in drug laws. ACLU, et. al. v. Mineta.

D.C. Voter Rights on Medical Marijuana Upheld

In Turner v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, a federal court ruled that Congress had acted improperly in passing the Barr Amendment, which prevented the District from spending any money to tally the results of a voter initiative on medical marijuana. The DPLP argued that making public the results of an election was inherently ""political speech,"" and therefore at the heart of the protections afforded by the First Amendment. The District Court agreed, and when the votes for the initiative were tallied, it had been overwhelmingly approved by a vote of 69-31 percent. Turner v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics.

Electronic Music Culture Protected

In response to the government's insistence that the State Palace Theatre in New Orleans ban masks, glow items, pacifiers, and vapor rub as ""drug paraphernalia"" in the settlement deal reached in U.S. v. Brunet, the DPLP filed McClure v. Ashcroft, in which a federal court found that the Attorney General's ban on these items violated the First Amendment rights of concertgoers. The decision was vacated by the Fifth Circuit on finding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the claim. McClure v. Ashcroft.

Government Attack on Raves

In response to the government's efforts to apply a federal ""crack house"" law to electronic music culture and prosecute two businessmen involved in organizing raves, the DPLP assisted in drafting a constitutional argument against the prosecutions in the case U.S. v. Brunet. The case was settled with a plea deal that eliminated all prison time for the two defendants. U.S. v. Brunet .

RACIAL JUSTICE

ACLU Holds Texas Task Force Accountable for Targeting African Americans in Racist Drug Sweep

The South Central Regional Texas Narcotics Task Force, along with the District Attorney and local police department in Hearne, Texas, used the false testimony of a confidential informant to arrest and detain 27 African Americans for selling cocaine. During the trial of one of those accused, the confidential informant was discovered to have fabricated evidence and lied under oath. The DPLP now represents those falsely accused in a civil damages suit, and has discovered that the agents of the task force, police department, and District Attorney threatened the confidential informant with bodily harm, lengthy incarceration, and prison rape if he did not fabricate evidence against African Americans. Kelly v. Paschall.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH & SEIZURE IN SCHOOLS

Students in South Carolina School Traumatized in SWAT-Style Drug Raid

The DPLP represents 20 African American students swept up in a drug raid at Stratford High School in Goose Creek, South Carolina in the lawsuit Alexander v. Goose Creek. The school's principal and the local police department orchestrated a suspicionless drug raid in which mostly African American students were held at gunpoint, searched, and subject to drug dog sniffs. The lawsuit asks the court to declare these types of searches unconstitutional and to ban them from happening again. Alexander v. Goose Creek Police Department.

Native American Students' Privacy Rights Protected

The DPLP filed a federal class-action lawsuit, Banks v. Wagner, on behalf of 17 Native American students who were terrorized when a suspicionless drug sweep was conducted of kindergarten through grade 12 classrooms. The suit charged that the school board, the Wagner Chief of Police, and an official with the Indian Affairs Bureau of the U.S. Department of the Interior violated the Fourth Amendment and an identical provision of the South Dakota Constitution when the students were contained in their classrooms for several hours and searched with a German Shepherd. The lawsuit resulted in a permanent injunction barring the school district from conducting any further suspicionless drug searches. Banks v. Wagner.

ACLU Blocks Drug-Dog Sniffs of Students:

The ACLU of New Mexico and the DPLP successfully settled a lawsuit in federal court against the Lordsburg School Board for its policy of conducting drug-dog sniffs during lockdowns of students in grades 5-12. The School Board agreed to permanently stop all drug dog sniffs. Whipple v. Lordsburg Municipal Schools Board of Education.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Religious Rights of Rastafarians to Use Marijuana Upheld

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark ruling establishing protection for the religious use of marijuana in Guam v. Guerrero. The DPLP represented a man who was arrested as he returned to Guam from Hawaii with marijuana that he intended to use in his Rastafarian religious practice. Guam v. Guerrero.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO DRUG TESTING

School-Wide Drug Testing Struck Down

The DPLP charged that the Lockney School Board's mandatory, suspicionless, school-wide drug testing policy violated the constitutional rights of its client, 12-year-old Brady Tannahill, in Tannahill v. Lockney. The Texas District Court struck down the policy on the grounds that it violated the Fourth Amendment. Tannahill v. Lockney.

DPLP Upholds the Rights of Welfare Recipients

In Marchwinski v. Howard, the DPLP successfully argued that the State of Michigan's policy that randomly tested welfare recipients for drug use was an unconstitutional violation of Fourth Amendment privacy protections. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the state policy, and the ACLU arrived at an agreement with the Family Independence Agency that ensured that it would only test for drugs in the future when there is a reasonable suspicion of drug use. Marchwinski v. Howard.

ACLU Fights Drug Testing of Students Participating in Extracurriculars in Washington

In York v. Wahkiakum School District, No. 200 et al., the ACLU of Washington and the DPLP claim that the school district's policy of suspicionless drug testing of students who participate in extracurricular activities violates the Washington Constitution's privacy protections. The Washington Court of Appeals granted a temporary injunction to halt the urine testing. York v. Wahkiakum School District.

Colorado Ruled to Have Overstepped Privacy Lines in Greyhound Case

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that a state law requiring all state-licensed participants in the greyhound racing industry to undergo random drug testing was unconstitutional. The DPLP assisted the ACLU of Colorado in arguing that random drug tests were only permissible if the government could demonstrate an overriding special need, and the court ruled that the government had not done so in this case. Timm v. Reitz.

HARM REDUCTION

Legal Needle-Exchange Program Participants Protected

A suit filed by the DPLP and the ACLU of Massachusetts challenged the practice of local police forces that were arresting participants of a needle-exchange program approved by a statewide initiative. In Massachusetts v. Landry, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that program participants may possess needles legally obtained through the program throughout the state and that there is no probable cause to arrest a program participant found with hypodermic needles if she presents a facially valid membership card. Massachusetts v. Landry.

Court Protects Public Health Program from Police Harassment

The DPLP successfully filed a class-action suit in a Federal District Court in Connecticut to stop the Bridgeport Police Department from harassing legal participants of the Bridgeport Syringe Exchange Program, a program designed to curb the spread of infectious disease through safely disposing of used needles and improving the participants' access to medical services and treatment. In Doe v. Bridgeport, the court issued a permanent injunction against the Bridgeport Police Department from interfering with a public health initiative that effectively combats disease. Doe v. Bridgeport.