# National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 21, 1989 · 489 U.S. 656

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431610

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION Et Al. v. VON RAAB, COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 21, 1989
- **Citations:** 489 U.S. 656; 1989 CCH OSHD 28,589; 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 246; 57 U.S.L.W. 4338; 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 38,792; 109 S. Ct. 1384; 103 L. Ed. 2d 685; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 6033
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Marshall
- **Judges:** Kennedy, Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Marshall, Brennan, Scalia, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 982 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431610

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that when "a Fourth Amendment intrusion serves special governmen- tal needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance the individual's privacy expectations against the Govern- ment's interests to determine whether it is impractical to r…
- explaining that when "a Fourth Amendment intrusion serves special governmental needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance the individual's privacy expectations against the Government's interests to determine whether it is impractical to requi…
- holding reasonable a U.S. Customs regulation requiring urine testing of all employees who applied for a promotion that required the carrying of a gun and involvement with drug interdiction, given that the “government’s compelling interest in safeguarding borders and public saf…
- recognizing that not only is the physical safety of border employees themselves-those involved in drug interdiction and those who otherwise are required to carry firearms-threatened in that line of work but also the safety of others at large should those employees carry out th…

## Opinion text

Justice Marshall,
with whom Justice Brennan joins, dissenting.
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., ante, p. 635, I also dissent from the Court’s decision in this case. Here, as in Skinner, the Court’s abandonment of the Fourth Amendment’s express requirement that searches of the person rest on *680 probable cause is unprincipled and unjustifiable. But even if I believed that balancing analysis was appropriate under the Fourth Amendment, I would still dissent from today’s judgment for the reasons stated by Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion, post this page, and for the reasons noted by the dissenting judge below relating to the inadequate tailoring of the Customs Service’s drug-testing plan. See 816 F. 2d 170 , 182-184 (CA5 1987) (Hill, J.).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431610. Public record. Not legal advice.