Statements (64)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
1997-04-22
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Considered precedent of previous rulings
Examined balance of privacy and safety |
| gptkbp:case_number |
Highlighted the importance of legal representation
96-1667 Examined the role of public opinion in legal decisions Reflected on the evolving nature of drug testing laws Emphasized the importance of constitutional protections Considered the implications for workplace privacy rights Investigated the effects on public sector employment policies Analyzed the impact of the ruling on state laws Addressed the balance of power between state and individual rights Challenged by Chandler Chandler was a candidate for state office Considered the implications for future legislation Defended by Miller Examined implications for civil liberties Focused on the legality of mandatory drug tests Highlighted issues of public trust Involved a Georgia law requiring drug testing Miller was the Georgia state official Raised questions about government authority Reflected on societal attitudes towards drug use Explored the ramifications for candidates in elections Examined the intersection of law and ethics in drug testing Discussed the role of the judiciary in civil rights Discussed the potential for appeals and further litigation |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-4 ruling
Majority opinion emphasized privacy rights Dissent argued for government interests Struck down Georgia law Set a standard for drug testing in public employment |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Influence on state policies
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
gptkb:Constitution
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Strengthened Fourth Amendment protections
Guidance for future drug testing cases |
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
1997-06-26 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Chandler v. Miller
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Chandler
gptkb:Miller |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
gptkb:520_U._S._305
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Constitutionality of state law
|
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:United_States_federal_government
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Public employment
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Invalidated state law
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Invasion of privacy
Fourth Amendment rights Government interest in drug testing |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Unconstitutional drug testing
|
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Reasonable expectation of privacy
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Court ruled against drug testing
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:Board_of_Education_v._Earls
Influenced subsequent Supreme Court decisions Limits on government drug testing |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:National_Treasury_Employees_Union_v._Von_Raab
gptkb:Skinner_v._Railway_Labor_Executives'_Association |
| gptkbp:significance |
Impact on drug testing policies
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:National_Treasury_Employees_Union_v._Von_Raab
gptkb:Skinner_v._Railway_Labor_Executives'_Association |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
6
|