The Federal Court Tells Florida’s Governor Scott To Go Pee In His Own Cup. Law Found Unconstitutional
October 27, 2011
By Debi Johnson-Champ

Florida and Missouri have passed into law, bills that require recipients of welfare to submit to blood, urine or hair sample tests in order to claim their checks. Thirty-six states have bills pending and many Republican dominated state houses are eager to test those that are “living off the generosity of the real taxpayers.” I’ve been told that as the taxpayers, we are, in effect, their employers and as such, demanding drug tests should be no different than those demanded by many employers in the “real work force.” Or so goes the reasoning for these tests. And so goes thousands of posts and comments on websites by conservative supporters with mini-celebrations announcing the states that have passed these testing requirements: “Two down, 48 to go.” Florida won the race for passing the first Welfare Recipients Pee in a Cup law and then became the first to face a challenge on the constitutionality of it.

These bills are directed strictly at welfare recipients (aka “the poor” or the purportedly poor) and exempt those receiving student loans or individuals employed by the government at the local, state or federal level. They also exempt homeowners who claim a deduction for their mortgage interest, which in all fairness, is welfare. (I enjoy that deduction and would like to think that I’m not using a “welfare” feature but all-in-all, deductions of this kind are a federal and state “gift”–aka “welfare” to help homeowners deflect the costs of home ownership.) Additionally, contractors that bid and receive state contracts that are subsidized for many reasons such as helping minorities or women seeking small business loans are also exempt from peeing in the cup. Corporations, although “people” under Citizens United as well as farmers and Big Oil, who receive subsidies are exempt as well. Basically, only the poor seeking welfare assistance are peeing in cups.

Numerous polls (or at least those posted by the Republican governors in the states with or contemplating said Welfare Peeing Laws) would indicate that taxpayers are “FED UP!” with the lazy, drug addicted, crack dealing, drug smuggling welfare recipients in their states and want an immediate end to this practice and support drug testing. (This is not an endorsement of Rick Perry’s book and while I understand that there is no bill pending in Texas, a group calling itself “The People of Texas” has been circulating a petition to present to Governor Perry upon his return to the state–said petition demanding drug testing of welfare recipients).


Well the day of reckoning has come and Governor Rick Scott has been told to go pee in his own cup. Or words to that effect. According to Mother Jones:

[L]ate Monday night, federal court Judge Mary Scriven put a halt to the tea party Republican’s marquee plan, concluding that “the wholesale, suspicionless drug testing of all applicants” for Florida’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th Amendment.

The article went on to quote Judge Scriven:

“Though the State speaks in generalities about the ‘public health risk, as well as the crime risk, associated with drugs’ being ‘beyond dispute,’ it provides no concrete evidence that those risks are any more present in TANF applicants than in the greater population,” Scriven wrote in her ruling against Florida’s government. “It is not enough to simply recite a governmental interest without any evidence of a concrete threat that would be mitigated through drug testing.”

The suit was filed on behalf of Luis Lebron by the Florida Justice Institute and the state’s ACLU. Mr. Lebron, according to the ACLU website , wasn’t concerned about testing positive, but did not believe he should have to submit to this invasive test when he qualified for the program.

Luis, 35, is a U.S. Navy veteran and a single father who fought to establish paternity of his son. He goes to college full-time and cares for his disabled mother. Recently, his veterans’ benefits ran out; he was living day to day on student loans and grants, teetering on the brink of poverty, so he asked the state of Florida for a helping hand and qualified for food stamps and Medicaid.

Luis also qualified for TANF, but there was a catch.

Under a new Florida law, Luis had to pay for and pass a drug test before he could get TANF. He would have to give a sample of his urine to a lab and acknowledge that the state would share any negative results with Florida’s Child Abuse Hotline. Luis knew he’d test negative because he doesn’t use illegal drugs, but that wasn’t the point: he also knew that he shouldn’t have to submit to an invasive search to prove it.

The USDC opinion, in its entirety, has been made available by the ACLU (PDF).

“One down, 37 to go.”

Edited by Wendy Gittleson

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/27/the-federal-court-tells-floridas-governor-scott-to-go-pee-in-his-own-cup-law-found-unconstitutional/

Who would have figured that assuming that if you are poor you are a druggie wouldn't fly?

I know they can't help themselves, they have such a prejudice way of thinking that they have to be prejudice all the damn time.

But I sure am glad to see the feds have some sense.

I think there are so many categories of welfare. It would seem reasonable to do such testing for those recipients who are on work programs (which is probably most , since most states require it for financial assistance), I think that other forms of assistance though,,where the recipient is somehow unable to work but is eligible for assistance should not be drug tested on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

I don't think anyone is assuming that poor people are druggies. Rich people are some of the worst druggies! All that money to burn on cocaine and prostitutes.


I think that having the government issuing mandatory drug tests for the populace is totally unconstitutional.

But is welfare a basic right?

I don't think the government owes anyone welfare. I think welfare is optional.

It makes perfect sense to me to require people to undergo drug tests as a condition for receiving welfare. If you want to exercise your liberty and not be drug tested, you can also exercise your liberty and find another way to make ends meet, aside from welfare.

If states want to drug test their welfare recipients (which seems totally reasonable to me), but the Feds say they can't do it...

...then it seems to me that the thing to do is create a new category of assistance.

Minimize the welfare programs that are subject to this restriction as much as we can, make it harder to get into those programs, and reduce the benefits as much as we can.

Then create new assistance programs that are designed to not be subject to those restriction, and redirect as much money as we can into those programs.

Giving government money to addicts, without any kind of oversight, harms them. It is morally wrong to issue checks to people who spend it harming themselves.

Hummm I'm sorry but before we think about drug testing the ones that are getting assistance, they should first take off all the ones that are illegal first!!


Most do not have a clue that those that are on welfare are not even asked if they are legal and the assistance is given. Even though they know at the time when they applied they are illegal it is not even considered if they are legal or not...

To me that is messed up yet the State wants to put it off on Employers and fine them for hiring illegals. The State gladly gives them assistance....

I'm not saying they don't need it or deserve help but if they are going to drug test the ones that are legal then man up and change the rules that one must be legal in the first place to even receive assistance in the first place. JMO~~~~~~~

Actually this isn't true.

They are asked if they are citizens and required to show proof of it. If they do not meet these requirements they cannot get assistance.

Assuming that all recipients are druggies before they are even on the program is discriminatory and ridiculous.

what happened to not having to incriminate yourself (which is a basic right guaranteed by the constitution)

any law passed by any govt group should have to be followed by that govt group (i bet drug testing of any kind would disappear)

but hey what do i know

Said from someone who obviously never needed the help, which is great for those who are like you.

It is still discriminatory to require that you be drug tested simply because you are poor or have a down turn in life.

Considering that Clinton reformed welfare in the nineties and work and work related activities are required to receive it, there is no need to drug test them. It is a waste of money.

They will be drug tested for the jobs that they get anyway. Those who cannot participate in the job activities cannot get welfare anyway.

But to assume that drug addiction is a part of being poor is not a good thought process to have in the first place. There are poor of all calibres of character, just as there are rich of all calibre of character. It is the assumption that you are a druggie since you are poor that is discriminatory.

Ever hear of fake ID's? Its a huge business in this country.

We'll see what the SCOTUS has to say about it.

We were able to verify the validity of an ID/ssn/green card/visa/etc... when I worked for the Welfare department. Not a problem.

The federal government states that no welfare monies go to illegals, it has been that way as long as I can remember. So the federal monies that go to the states for welfare recipients cannot under any circumstances go to an illegal. Now most states subsidize the small amount alotted through the feds with state monies. In the south almost no states subsidize the federal monies so no southern state is giving any illegals welfare anyway. Now the states that do subsidize, can give what they subsidize to anyone they choose. California being the state that chooses to give illegals welfare. None others do that I am aware of and just recently became aware they did.

So that said illegals do not get welfare from the states with the exception of one and do not have not ever got welfare from the federal government. Foodstamps either. The combo families are restricted the amount of foodstamps they get when there is an illegal in the household. Only citizens can get foodstamps.

Even legally here people from other countries cannot get welfare or foodstamps for the first five years they are here.

So the bullshyute about welfare getting to illegals is just that bullshyte.

I guess getting all caught up in the prejudice mind set is a terrible way to be. I can only imagine all the personal grief and lack of joy it takes to believe that all welfare recipients are lazy, druggies living off the system. When technically they can't anyway even without drug tests.

What a joyless way to live. I feel sorry for those folks who believe this crap.

Actually only one percent of welfare recipients have been found to be on drugs in theState of Florida.....

Hopefully they will use that information to get some drug counseling available since that will be the only data they will have.

It is going to be unconstitutional to drug test people because they are poor all over the country.

Not sure when they changed that for I know for sure when I had to go for assistance after my divorce at that time they were on welfare if they were illegal.

You assumed they were illegal?

How could you know on sight?

The feds have had the same rules about no illegals getting assistance for a long time.

People have made assumptions based on profiling that they believed people were illegal when they were not which has caused a whole lotta false information to be spread.

Lots of victims out there of this false information living with all this hatred festering inside of themselves over false information.

It is sad.

To receive benefits from the government you have to provide proof of your citizenship and if you can't we used to refer you to a charity that might be able to help you, but you didn't get any benefits while waiting.

I respond to a few different people here:



That must be a cultural difference between FL and CA.

Or maybe everyone just knows how to circumvent the tests. Like...many of my friends are committed weed smokers, and they have a cleansing routine they do before they take pee tests. No one ever seems to get caught.

In any case, I guarantee the % of california welfare recipients who smoke week is MUCH higher than 1%. Weed is very common and accepted out here.






You have no idea where I've been, and what I've done. Its precisely because of my experiences with poverty that I speak with authority on this topic.

No one will get drug tested 'because they are poor' - they might get drugs tested because they CHOOSE to participate in a government program.




I personally knew illegal aliens who successfully scammed the welfare system. At the moment, I can't think of any mexicans that I knew. These were illegal eastern europeans.

BoredInAZ is right. Its not terribly hard to produce fake docs, and the overworked, careless people working at the welfare office fall for it.




I would fully expect that a drug testing program would go hand-in-hand with a rehabilitation program. I would oppose a policy of pressing charges for drug use - that just clutters up our legal system with poor people who did no other wrong!

If they pass a law requiring drug testing as a prereq for welfare, guess what? Congress people would be following the same law! The day this law applies to a congressperson is the day they apply for welfare.

I think you could make a good argument that congresspeople should also be drug tested, though. Hell, we could make it so that every human being who receives money from the government in any way shape or form should be drug tested.

Shortly thereafter we might start voting for the sane decriminalization of the milder drugs.

My sentiments exactly.