In a decision released June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that public high schools can conduct random drug tests on any student involved in extracurricular activities.

Extending a 1995 ruling that allowed public schools to test student-athletes, the decision opens the door to testing the urine of drug-infested institutions such as the chess club, the Future Business Leaders of America, the marching band and the soil-judging team.

This makes sense. If the golf team gets tested, so should the audio-visual club. Though there are obvious differences between, for instance, playing football and being captain of the quiz bowl, the requirements to participate in an extracurricular activity should be the same across the board. If students need a 2.0 grade point average to play basketball, they should need the same to sing in the choir. If softball players have to pee in a cup, so should the mock trial team.

What doesn’t makes sense is the arguments made by Justice Clarence Thomas in the majority opinion. It seems that the logic used by the court could easily be extrapolated to justify drug testing for all public high school students.

Thomas wrote that the government is responsible for maintaining health and safety in schools and pointed out that “schoolchildren are routinely required to submit to physical examinations and vaccinations against disease.” He continued, writing that the privacy invasion is insignificant because “the nationwide drug epidemic makes the war against drugs a pressing concern in every school.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion that the Oklahoma school’s policy is “capricious, even perverse,” writing that it “targets for testing a student population least likely to be at risk for illicit drugs and their damaging effects.” She noted that in the 1995 decision, the school in question had a proven drug problem. The Oklahoma school admitted it did not. That ruling also pointed out the dangers of playing sports like football while on drugs, not a concern when one is playing chess.

That is exactly the problem. It’s unfair to have different standards to participate in sports and other after-school activities, but the justification for allowing testing for all students involved in anything beyond class can too easily be extended to include every enrolled student.

In comparing drug abuse to measles and mumps, the court seems to be classifying drugs as a much larger public health threat than it has previously done. That implication, of course, is ridiculous. You can catch measles and mumps from a classmate. You can’t catch marijuana or speed.

If the court supports drug-testing students who have given administrators no reason to believe they are on drugs and are not taking part in any possibly dangerous activities, what’s to stop it from allowing schools to test all students?

For now, just four justices. Unfortunately, that’s one short.

Editorial Board: Dave Roepke, Erin Randolph, Charlie Weaver, Megan Hinds, Rachel Faber Machacha