The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Wednesday, November 2, 1988
Decision: Tuesday, March 21, 1989
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Search and Seizure
Categories: fourth amendment, labor, searches and seizures

Advocates

Lawrence M. Mann (on behalf of the Respondents)
Dick Thornburgh (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Recognizing the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse by railroad employees, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) implemented regulations requiring mandatory blood and urine tests of employees involved in certain train accidents. Other FRA rules allowed railroads to administer breath and urine tests to employees who violate certain safety rules.

Question

Did the regulations violate the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

No. The Court held that the government's interest in assuring safety on the nation's railroads constituted a "special need" which justified a departure from standard warrant and probable-cause requirements in searches. Preventing accidents, the goal of most railroad regulations including the one in this case, argued Justice Kennedy, was such a significant concern that it warranted reduced "expectations of privacy" for railroad employees.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 7 votes for Skinner, 2 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the minority, joined Marshall's dissent
Brennan
Voted with the majority
White
Wrote a dissent
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Wrote a special concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Wrote the majority opinion
Kennedy
Full Opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assoc., 489 U.S. 602 (1989),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_1555/>
(last visited ).