Case: Lebron v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Children & Families

On September 6, 2011, a resident of Florida and applicant for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) assistance filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class action against the Florida Department of Children and Families in the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. The plaintiff, represented by the ACLU of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that Florida's TANF application requirements violated the Constitution. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the requirement that all applicants undergo suspicionless drug testing in order to be considered for assistance constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Judge Mary S. Scriven was assigned to the case.

The plaintiff moved on September 6, 2011 for a preliminary injunction and on September 13, 2011 for class certification. The plaintiff proposed a class consisting of all individuals residing in Florida who were applying for, or would in the future apply for, Temporary Cash Assistance (Florida's program to distribute TANF benefits) and who would be subject to defendant's suspicion-less drug testing. Defendant opposed both motions.

On October 24, 2011, the District Court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction but denied his motion for class certification. Lebron v. Wilkins, 820 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (M.D. Fla. 2011). The court found that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on his Fourth Amendment claim and issued an injunction that barred the defendant from requiring the plaintiff to take a suspicionless drug test. Since the defendant stipulated that it would apply the court's ruling to all people similarly situated to the plaintiff, the Court found that class certification was unnecessary and dismissed the plaintiff's motion to certify without prejudice.

Defendant appealed the injunction to the Eleventh Circuit. But the Circuit Court (Barkett and Jordan, Circuit Judges, and Hall, District Judge sitting by designation) affirmed the District Court's injunction in an opinion issued on February 26, 2013. See Lebron v. Sec’y, Florida Dep’t of Children & Families, 710 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2013). Defendant petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for a rehearing en banc. Defendant’s petition was denied on April 23, 2013.

On November 4, 2011, the plaintiff renewed his motion for class certification, arguing that certification would avoid litigation over mootness should the plaintiff find employment. The District Court (Judge Scriven) agreed and certified the class in an order dated December 7, 2011. Lebron v. Wilkins, 277 F.R.D. 664 (M.D. Fla. 2011). The parties continued with preparing for trial.

On September 10, 2012 the plaintiff filed for Summary Judgment on the grounds that Section 414.0652 of the Florida Statutes, which requires all applicants for TANF benefits to submit to suspicionless drug testing, is not constitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. On the same day, the defendant filed a cross motion for summary judgment, arguing that TANF applicants consent to the drug testing and, even if the consent argument failed, that the State had a special need to drug test applicants. On December 31, 2013, the District Court issued summary judgment for the plaintiff on the grounds that the State had failed to establish a special need to drug test all TANF applicants. In the same judgment the Court declared the statute facially unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the State from reinstating and enforcing the law.

The defendant appealed the District Courts issuance of Summary Judgment to the Eleventh Circuit. And on December 3, 2014, the Circuit Court (Hull and Marcus, Circuit Judges, and TOTENBERG, District Judge sitting by designation) affirmed the District Court’s decision on the grounds that the State failed to meet its burden of establishing a substantial special need to drug test all TANF applicants without any suspicion of drug use. Lebron v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families, 772 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2014). The Circuit Court granted appellate costs for the plaintiff and against the defendant, but the plaintiff did not move for attorney’s fees. The case is now closed.