{"id":2660,"date":"2011-08-09T14:45:44","date_gmt":"2011-08-09T18:45:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/?p=2660"},"modified":"2016-11-16T20:41:25","modified_gmt":"2016-11-17T01:41:25","slug":"in-their-own-words-fl-governor-rick-scott-economic-profiling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/in-their-own-words-fl-governor-rick-scott-economic-profiling\/","title":{"rendered":"In Their Own Words – Fl. Governor Rick Scott & Economic Profiling"},"content":{"rendered":"

Each day this week, Amicus will feature an editorial post written by one of CRCL\u2019s new General Board members.\u00a0 Today\u2019s post discusses Florida Governor Rick Scott’s welfare drug testing legislation and how it constitutes economic profiling.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Last month, Governor Rick Scott of Florida signed a bill requiring Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients to undergo drug testing. If a recipient tests positive for drugs, she or he becomes ineligible for benefits. Scott reasoned that this law prevents taxpayer money from subsidizing drug addiction.<\/p>\n

The passage of this legislation sparked a debate in the legal community regarding whether Governor Scott\u2019s drug testing requirement violates the Fourth Amendment rights of welfare recipients. This Constitutional discussion is certainly important \u2013 indeed, critics’ Fourth Amendment arguments against the legislation may ultimately lead to its invalidation \u2013 however from a civil rights perspective, the discriminatory <\/em>nature of the legislation is even more important.<\/p>\n

Scott\u2019s legislation sanctions a form of mass profiling \u2013 \u201ceconomic profiling.\u201d It forces lower-income individuals to undergo intrusive tests in order to receive government benefits, but does not render benefits received by other groups contingent on undergoing such tests. Supporters of the bill assert that there is nothing discriminatory about it; they claim that it simply addresses the reality that a disproportionate amount of welfare recipients are drug users.\u00a0 Even if this claim were true (and it is questionable), it cannot justify government action that targets a broad population based on purported characteristics of some of its members.\u00a0 Such action constitutes a paradigmatic example of discrimination.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, still assuming the truth of supporters\u2019 assertions, the legislation does not target other groups that similarly include significant numbers of drug users. Many middle and upper class college students receive some form of government aid and many of these students are drug users (if you don\u2019t believe me, go to a party at my alma mater). Yet Scott\u2019s legislation does not condition students’ government-issued benefits on negative drug test results. Nor does the legislation place such requirements on tax breaks \u2013 which are government benefits by another name \u2013 to wealthy individuals in high-stress professions often associated with drug use. No, the legislation does not impact any of these groups; it only targets welfare recipients. It only targets the poor.<\/p>\n

Given that courts assess claims of economic discrimination under \u201crational basis review,\u201d Governor Scott\u2019s legislation is unlikely to be struck down based on these grounds. Nevertheless, it is important that the discriminatory nature of the legislation remains a part of the debate. Raising awareness of its profound flaws may help prevent the passage of future similar legislation.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last month, Governor Rick Scott of Florida signed a bill requiring Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients to undergo drug testing. If a recipient tests positive for drugs, she or he becomes ineligible for benefits. Critics’ Fourth Amendment arguments against the legislation may ultimately lead to its invalidation \u2013 however from a civil rights perspective, the discriminatory nature of the legislation is even more important.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,37],"tags":[182,191,196,237,242,435,460],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-2660","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-amicus","category-poverty-and-economic-justice","tag-discrimination","tag-drug-testing","tag-economic-profiling","tag-florida","tag-fourth-amendment","tag-profiling","tag-rick-scott"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-GU","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2660","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2660"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2660\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2660"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2660"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2660"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2660"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}