their character and integrity, and many of whom have received high awards for their distinguished public service.
Many other conceivable forms of misconduct by plaintiffs could be harmful to the compelling governmental interests defendants assert. For example, an employee might embezzle, obstruct justice, or accept bribes. Such acts would clearly harm the integrity and public image of the government, yet no one could seriously argue that, absent any grounds to suspect misconduct, defendants would be justified in tapping that employee's telephone, censoring his mail or searching his home.
Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that compulsory random urinalysis drug testing as proposed in defendants' drug testing program is an unreasonable search and seizure that violates the fourth amendment. The balance of equities favors maintaining the status quo. Because the Court has concluded that compulsory random urinalysis drug testing of plaintiffs would violate the fourth amendment, plaintiffs would suffer harm if the injunction were not granted. Defendants have no urgent need to implement their program by August 26, 1988, and would, at most, be inconvenienced by postponement of the program should the Court ultimately rule in defendants' favor. Another reason for maintaining the status quo is that the Supreme Court has agreed to review two drug testing cases. NTEU v. von Raab, 816 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. granted, 485 U.S. 903, 108 S. Ct. 1072, 99 L. Ed. 2d 232 (1988); RLEA v. Burnley, 839 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. granted, 486 U.S. 1042, 56 U.S.L.W. 3831, 100 L. Ed. 2d 618, 108 S. Ct. 2033 (U.S. June 7, 1988). The Supreme Court's decision in those cases will likely control the ultimate disposition of this case. Based upon what has been stated, the Court also concludes that the public interest is well served by preliminary injunction. In sum, all criteria for issuance of a preliminary injunction have been satisfied. Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Federal Power Comm'n, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 106, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (1958); Washington Metropolitan Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 182 U.S. App. D.C. 220, 559 F.2d 841, 844 (1977). The Court shall issue an Order accordingly. Defendants' motion to dismiss and for summary judgment is DENIED.
ORDER - July 29, 1988, Filed
In accordance with the Memorandum issued this 29th day of July, 1988, it is hereby
ORDERED, that plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Until further order of this Court, defendants are enjoined from implementing mandatory random drug testing by urinalysis in the Offices, Boards and Litigating Divisions of the Department of Justice under the "Department of Justice Drug-Free Workplace Plan."
GEORGE H. REVERCOMB, Judge
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.