<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" version="2.0">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Privacy Issues - Miscellaneous Arguments</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/privacy/miscellaneous/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  <itunes:image>http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg</itunes:image>
  <itunes:category text="Government &amp; Organizations"/>
      <itunes:subtitle>U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</itunes:subtitle>
    
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Board of Education v. Earls - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy adopted by the Tecumseh, Oklahoma School District (School District) requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity. Two Tecumseh High School students and their parents brought suit, alleging that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment. The District Court granted the School District summary judgment. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the policy violated the Fourth Amendment. The appellate court concluded that before imposing a suspicionless drug-testing program a school must demonstrate some identifiable drug abuse problem among a sufficient number of those tested, such that testing that group will actually redress its drug problem, which the School District had failed to demonstrate.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Is the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy, which requires all students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing, consistent with the Fourth Amendment?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>01-332_20020319-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_332/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_332/argument/01-332_20020319-argument.mp3" length="14642299" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Bowers v. Hardwick - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 1986 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Michael Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while engaging in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. After being charged with violating a Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy, Hardwick challenged the statute's constitutionality in Federal District Court. Following a ruling that Hardwick failed to state a claim, the court dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Georgia's statute was unconstitutional. Georgia's Attorney General, Michael J. Bowers, appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted certiorari.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Does the Constitution confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy, thereby invalidating the laws of many states which make such conduct illegal?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>85-140_19860331-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_140/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_140/argument/85-140_19860331-argument.mp3" length="13322228" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Chandler v. Miller - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Under a Georgia statute, all candidates for elected state office must pass a urinalysis drug test within 30 days prior to their qualifying for nomination or election. Miller, on behalf of several state office nominees from the Libertarian Party, challenged the statute's constitutionality, naming Georgia's governor and two other regulatory officials as defendants. On appeal from an adverse District Court ruling, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did Georgia's drug testing statute violate the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against illegal search and seizures?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>96-126_19970114-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_126/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_126/argument/96-126_19970114-argument.mp3" length="14566333" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Doe v. Chao - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Seven coal miners sued the Department of Labor, claiming that the department had violated the federal Privacy Act and the right to privacy found in the federal Constitution by releasing their social security numbers (SSNs). The Privacy Act stated that any "person entitled to recovery" in a suit against the government for a violation of privacy would be awarded "actual damages sustained by the individual... but in no case... [would the damages awarded be] less than the sum of $1000" and attorney fees.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The miners argued that all they needed to prove in order to receive the $1000 minimum award was that the government had violated their privacy by releasing their SSNs; they did not need to prove that they had suffered actual damages. They maintained that the inclusion of "actual damages" in the act was only intended to limit the size of judgments awarded against the government, not to require proof of actual damage. The government argued that the act required the miners to prove that they had been harmed by the government's violation of their privacy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The district court ruled in favor of the government. A divided Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Does the federal Privacy Act require that people prove they suffered "actual damage" stemming from the government's violation of their privacy rights in order to win damages in a suit against the government?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>02-1377_20031203-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1377/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1377/argument/02-1377_20031203-argument.mp3" length="14789178" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Gonzaga University v. Doe - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;A student at Gonzaga University planned to become a public elementary school teacher in Washington, which required all new teachers to obtain an affidavit of good moral character from their graduating colleges. Gonzaga's teacher certification specialist overheard one student tell another that the student had engaged in sexual misconduct, contacted the state agency responsible for teacher certification, and discussed the allegations, identifying the student by name. Ultimately, the student was told that he would not receive his certification affidavit. The student sued Gonzaga in state court, alleging a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), which prohibits the federal funding of schools that have a policy or practice of permitting the release of students' education records without their parents' written consent. A jury awarded the student compensatory and punitive damages. Ultimately, the State Supreme Court acknowledged that FERPA does not give rise to a private cause of action, but reasoned that the nondisclosure provision creates a federal right that is enforceable.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;May a student sue a private university for damages to enforce provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>01-679_20020424-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_679/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_679/argument/01-679_20020424-argument.mp3" length="14195177" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Lawrence and Garner v. Texas - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered John Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), controlling.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>02-102_20030326-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_102/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_102/argument/02-102_20030326-argument.mp3" length="14112358" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 1977 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>76-944_19771108-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_944/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_944/argument/76-944_19771108-argument.mp3" length="18254008" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Owasso Independent School Dist. No. I011 v. Falvo - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Kristja J. Falvo asked the Owasso Independent School District to ban peer grading, or the practice of allowing students to score each other's tests, papers, and assignments as the teachers explain the correct answers to the entire class, because it embarrassed her children. When the school district declined, Falvo filed an action against the school district, claming that such peer grading violates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). FERPA authorizes federal funds to be withheld from school districts that permit students' "education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein)" to be released without their parents' written consent and defines education records as "records, files, documents, and other materials" containing information directly related to a student, which "are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution." Disagreeing with Falvo, the District Court held that grades put on papers by another student are not "education records." In reversing, the Court of Appeals found that grades marked by students on each other's work are "education records," such that the very act of grading is an impermissible release of information to the student grader.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Does the practice of peer grading violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>00-1073_20011127-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1073/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1073/argument/00-1073_20011127-argument.mp3" length="13937900" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Troxel v. Granville - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;During Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel's relationship, which ended in 1991, they had two daughters. Until Brad's suicide in 1993, Brad's parents Jenifer and Gary Troxel, the paternal grandparents, had regularly seen their granddaughters on weekends. However, after Brad's suicide, Granville informed the Troxels that she wished to reduced their visitation time to one short visit per month. The Troxels filed suit for the right to visit their grandchildren, under section 26.10.160(3) of the Revised Code of Washington, which permits "any person" to petition for visitation rights "at any time" and authorizes state superior courts to grant such rights whenever visitation may serve a child's best interest. Granville did not oppose the petition outright but did oppose the amount of visitation time sought by the Troxels. Subsequently, a Washington Superior Court ordered more visitation than Granville desired. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed that decision, holding that non-parents lacked standing to sue under the statute. In affirming, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the statute unconstitutionally interfered with parents' right to rear their children.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Does the Washington statute, which allows any person to petition for a court-ordered right to see a child over a custodial parent's objection if such visitation is found to be in the child's best interest, unconstitutionally interfere with the fundamental right of parents to rear their children?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>99-138_20000112-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_138/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_138/argument/99-138_20000112-argument.mp3" length="14585939" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Vernonia School District v. Acton - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 1995 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes. James Acton, a student, was denied participation in his school's football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testing.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>94-590_19950328-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_590/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_590/argument/94-590_19950328-argument.mp3" length="14438213" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Whalen v. Roe - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 1976 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;In 1972, the state legislature enacted the New York State Controlled Substances Act. The Act required doctors to fill out forms for potentially harmful prescription drugs. The prescribing doctor kept one copy, while another copy was sent to the dispensing pharmacy and a third copy was sent to the state department of health. The forms included personal information such as the patient's name, address, and age.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did the reporting and record-keeping requirements violate the constitutional right to privacy embraced by the concept of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>75-839_19761013-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_839/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_839/argument/75-839_19761013-argument.mp3" length="14330242" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
 </channel>
</rss>
