Lebron v. Wilkins
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
820 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (2011)
- Written by Ann Wooster, JD
Facts
Luis Lebron (plaintiff), an undergraduate student with prior military service, applied for federal benefits under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program to support himself and his four-year-old son. A Florida statute required that all applicants for this class of federal welfare benefits had to submit to drug testing without reason for suspicion. Lebron filed an action in the district court against the secretary of the Florida Department of Children & Families (defendant), claiming that the drug-testing statute violated his right to be free from unreasonable searches protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lebron asserted that he had never used illegal drugs but that the state statute required him to submit to suspicionless drug testing as a condition of eligibility for the federal TANF benefits. Lebron refused to take a drug test because he believed that requiring him to pay for and submit to such a test was unreasonable when there was no reason to believe that he used drugs. Lebron moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the drug-testing statute against himself and similarly situated people as a condition for receiving TANF benefits. The district court held a hearing on the preliminary-injunction motion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scriven, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
