Federal Judiciary

Another Reason To Say No To Drugs

By Robert Loblaw

Students for a Sensible Drug Policy v. Spellings, 07-1159 (8^th Cir., April 29, 2008)

Under a 1998 law, students who are convicted of possessing or selling drugs are ineligible for federal financial assistance. One strike buys a year or two of ineligibility and, depending on the offense, multiple strikes can result in a permanent ban. (The ban has since been amended to apply only to students who commit the offenses while receiving aid.) A group of students challenged the ban, arguing that it violated the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, but the district court dismissed their suit.

I guess the cruel and unusual punishment argument was a bit too much even for the plaintiffs, as they abandoned this claim on appeal.  But the plaintiffs did appeal on Fifth Amendment grounds, arguing that the ban violated the double jeopardy clause. They claimed that the ban amounted to a second criminal punishment for the same offense, pointing to legislative history that the ban was intended to deter drug use on campus by severely punishing those who get caught. But the Eighth holds otherwise, concluding that the ban is more like a civil sanction than punishment.  Accordingly, the Court affirms the district court’s dismissal.

In a perfectly snarky world, the Eighth would have issued this decision on April 20, but I suppose April 29 is close enough for government work.

Full post as published by Decision of the Day on April 29, 2008 (boomark / email).