The Actons sued the school district. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled against the Actons, stating that students have a reduced expectation of privacy and should expect intrusions on their normal rights and privileges when they choose to participate in high school athletics. The Court used a balancing test. It weighed the students' privacy interests against the interests of the school district in providing a drug-free environment. The Court also pointed out that athletes regularly change clothes in front of each other and can expect to have less privacy.
The facts of Vernonia school district case, as set forth by the Supreme Court's opinion, was particularly important because the Court relied heavily on the facts of this drug-testing controversy when it fashioned its decision (Roberts 191). In the 1980s, the Vernonia schools suffered a substantial increase in student drug use as well as a rise in disciplinary problems, suspensions and expulsions (Roberts 191). The school system provided special classes and speakers and also tried drug-sniffing canines to prevent student drug use, finally the school administrators determined students were in a state of rebellion and that disciplinary problems had achieved epidemic proportions (Roberts 191). Administrators believed the drug problem was pervasive throughout the general student population, and it appeared that the leaders of the drug culture were the student athletes (Roberts 191).
Moreover, In Odenheim v. Carlstadt-East Rutherford Regional School District, the court held that drug testing, as a part of mandatory physical exams was "an attempt to control student discipline under the appearance of medical procedure." Attempts to pretest athletes raise the issue of whether extracurricular activities are rights or privileges.
However, In Schail v. Tippecanoe County School Corporation, a federal district court ruled that a drug analysis program for student athletes was justified by the school's "legitimate need to ensure drug-free athletes" (Gittins 1988).