April 29, 2008

Appeals Court Rejects Challenge to Law Denying Student Aid to Drug Offenders

Opponents of a law that prevents students who are convicted of drug offenses from receiving federal financial aid were handed another legal defeat today.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, upholding a 2006 decision by a U.S. District Court, has refused to reinstate a lawsuit that sought to strike down the law.

In its ruling the appeals court rejected arguments by the Students for Sensible Drug Policy Foundation, which filed the appeal, that the federal law is unconstitutional.

The group argued, in part, that denial of financial aid by the Education Department to students who have already served a court-imposed sentence violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on double jeopardy, criminally punishing someone twice for the same offense. But the appeals court said that the federal law’s sanctions cannot be considered criminally punitive, especially in the double-jeopardy context. —Sara Hebel

Comments

1. Now, I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that not only is this definitely double jeopardy, it’s also self-incrimination, as students must identify themselves as drug offenders on the FAFSA. Even if a student with no criminal record fails to answer the question, it puts their aid application on hold, so it’s also guilty until proven innocent.

   Of course, if you’ve been convicted for murder, rape, arson, assault, armed robbery or countless other offenses, here’s your Pell Grant, you’re still good to go. But we’re saying no to drugs!

   — DS    Apr 29, 04:05 PM    #

2. This is just another case of short-sighted political maneuvering for votes, as far as I can tell. No thoughtful consideration that, perhaps, a person with an education might be less likely to offend again. Such a crazy argument for witholding the means to better oneself!

   — barbara    Apr 29, 04:28 PM    #

3. This is not double jepardy in the same way that a campus judicial hearing is not considered double jepardy when being tried for the same offense off-campus. At the same time, your point about being given aid after having been found responsible for other felony offenses is a point well taken.

   — Bob Glenn    Apr 29, 04:30 PM    #

4. So if I smoked put at 16 but now, at 35 I’ve cleaned up my act and am a responsible and law abiding adult, I can’t get federal aid to advance my education so that I can become even more contributory to society? And don’t tell me that telling adolescents that they will lose eligibility for Federal financial aid is a deterrent to drug use. What adolescent really thinks about the future consequences of their actions?

   — TDD    Apr 29, 08:17 PM    #

5. I am a former criminal defense attorney. There is no double jeopardy claim here. Double jeopardy bars mutliple criminal punishment for the same offense which is not what is occurring here. What is interesting is the nexus between the behavior and the punishment. The statute requires the criminal behavior to occur during a period of enrollment, i.e. while in school, and restricts access to additional aid for prescribed periods. Under these conditions, the student balances the value of the financial aid based on a drug related conviction which occurs during a period of enrollment against the benefits of engaging in the proscribed activity. i.e. using or selling drugs. Separate and apart from this law, the use and sale of drugs is already an illegal activity with other known risks -legal and otherwise. The comparison to prior convictions is mistaken. The determinative factor is the timing of the prohibited activity – during a period of enrollment – which triggers the application of the rule. You would want to carefully evaluate whether a person convicted of other serious crimes, such as murder or rape, is ready to join a campus community regardless of when the offense was committed. The legal principles are fairly simple. The Court’s opinion is well written. It would be a good exercise to read the opinion.
   By the way, the 16 year old pot head, seeking an education at 35 wouldn’t have a problem under the law as written. I have actually read this statute with that issue in mind.

   — William Sias    Apr 29, 08:23 PM    #

6. While the statute may be well written and the court opinion may be sound, has anyone considered the the data on drug arrests? Who is most likely to be arrested for a drug-related crime? In actuality, a member of a minority group. Furthermore, people living in impoverished neighborhoods are more likely to be arrested on a drug charge.

   On the face of it, then, this law would seem to be subject to challenge on the basis of discrimination just as drug law enforcement would be. When a whilte college student is as likely to be arrested for drug possession or sale as a Black of Hispanic student, then I would say the law might be fair.

   — Bob Harris    Apr 30, 10:03 AM    #

7. Yeah, this statute will be overturned on the basis of discrimination when they end capitol punishment because minorities are more likely than whites to be executed for the same crime…mmm hmm.

   — Micah    Apr 30, 12:56 PM    #

8. Courts have to interpret the law as written. Most of the arguments in this forum are that it is a stupid law. People intelligent enough to have jobs in the academy should know that stupid laws are not necessarily unconstitutional laws. You need to take your argument up with the appropriate legislative body — not the court.

   — Alan Morris    Apr 30, 04:47 PM    #

9. Why not just obey the law and not do drugs? If the law were put to a vote, and voters were asked “Should taxpayer-funded student financial aid, including non-repayable grants, be given to students who have been convicted of drug offenses while in college,” what do you think the answer would be? It would not surprise me if the taxpayers would say “Cut out their aid and aid for all the criminals!” Most law-abiding people would probably resent paying their hard-earned tax money to send students convicted of any crimes to school, especially when they can’t afford and can’t get enough aid to pay for their own kids to get an education.

   Congress has a responsibility to the majority of the population to implement laws that the people want. That’s how a democracy works. Do you think a democratic society would vote to tax themselves so convicted criminals could get an education? I doubt it. People are getting fed up with crime, and paying for courts, jails, health care for prisoners (especially when they can’t afford the same benefits for their own families), etc.

   If the Students for a Sensible Drug Policy want to do something, it needs to take place in the legislature or in the voting booth. I could understand a student using medical marijuana (legitimately prescribed and obtained) being an exception to the drug law; so maybe that particular law needs to be changed on the federal level, and people who believe in it should work on spreading facts to the voters. But I doubt that anyone would vote to give students tax money for school so they can use financial aid or other money that could be used for school to pay for a few rocks or lines of cocaine. Shoot, I don’t think most voters would approve students getting aid paying for cable TV! Taxpayers want to see their dollars going to help qualified, needy students scrape up enough cash for tuition, books, and basic needs—not for nice spring break vacations, IPODS, car payments, restaurant meals, and certainly not for drugs!

   — Zeppo    Apr 30, 07:27 PM    #

10. Zeppo, the idea that a student who was caught smoking a joint while in college is guilty of spending his or her Federal Grant money on it is just silly—just as silly as the idea that if the have a beer, it too must have been purchased with the Grant money. And is it then ok to g ive money to rapists and murderers because rape and murder are “free” crimes (i.e., they don’t cost money to commit)? If you took every student out of college who had ever smoked pot, you would be hearing the sound of crickets chirping all over the colleges and not much else. If YOUR kid goes to college, smokes a joint or two or even, as our president did, does a line of cocaine and completes his or her education and goes out and lives a fine, upstanding and productive life, do you then feel your efforts in sending them to school were wasted, and that they would have been better off having been denied that education and sent to work out the balance of their lives in the type of jobs available to high school grads with a drug conviction on their records instead?

    Why should this incidence of questionable judgment—and ONLY this instance—be used to deny someone an education? Do you really think they get their grant checks in the mail and race off to cracktown?

    — zenith    May 1, 03:18 PM    #

Previous: 16 Women Elected to National Academy of Sciences
Next: College Board Settles With Test-Prep Company Accused of Copyright Infringement