## Facts

- Michigan participated in the federal TANF program and administered benefits through its Family Independence Program (FIP).
- Michigan enacted Mich. Comp. Laws § 400.57l authorizing a pilot program requiring urine drug tests for all FIP applicants and recipients in the pilot area.
- Individuals who tested positive were required to participate in substance-abuse treatment, and some recipients were subject to random retesting after six months.
- Michigan asserted the program addressed substance abuse as a barrier to employment and family stability, furthering TANF goals of child welfare and recipient self-sufficiency.
- FIP applicants/recipients and an advocacy organization sued, alleging the suspicionless testing condition violated the Fourth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether suspicionless urine drug testing of TANF/FIP applicants and recipients as a condition of benefits is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the program is justified under the “special needs” doctrine, and whether a special need must be primarily or exclusively tied to traditional public safety.
3. Whether precedent permitting noncriminal welfare-eligibility conditions supports the constitutionality of the testing program.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction against the program.
- The court held that a valid “special need” for suspicionless searches need not be primarily about public safety; it is sufficient that safety is a factor in the governmental interest.
- The court concluded Michigan’s objectives—addressing substance abuse to protect children’s welfare and support family stability and employability—qualified as special needs beyond ordinary law enforcement.
- Relying on Wyman v. James, the court treated the testing requirement as an administrative, rehabilitative condition of receiving welfare benefits rather than a criminal investigatory measure.
- Balancing the intrusion against the asserted governmental interests, the court found the program reasonable for purposes of interlocutory review and held the preliminary injunction improper.

## Legal Principles

- Suspicionless searches may be permissible under the Fourth Amendment when conducted to serve “special needs” beyond ordinary law enforcement and when reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
- A state’s special need need not be exclusively or primarily a traditional public-safety concern; it is enough that safety-related considerations form part of the interest.
- Conditions attached to welfare benefits may be constitutional when oriented toward administrative and rehabilitative purposes rather than crime control, consistent with Wyman v. James.
- In evaluating a preliminary injunction challenging a suspicionless search program, courts assess reasonableness by weighing the privacy intrusion against the government’s asserted programmatic interests and the noncriminal character of the scheme.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that Michigan’s suspicionless TANF drug-testing pilot was supported by special needs and, under a reasonableness balance informed by Wyman, was not shown at that stage to violate the Fourth Amendment.


Marchwinski v. Howard, 309 F.3d 330 (6th Cir. 2002)