It should come as no surprise that a state district judge has upheld the Goshen County School District's controversial policy of random drug testing for students in extracurricular activities. Case law was clearly on the district's side.

Dozens of parents and students in Goshen County sued the school district in July, claiming that the new policy violated the students' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. They also said it was a violation of the Wyoming Constitution.

But participating in extracurricular school activities is a privilege, not a right, and the school district is entitled to make drug testing a requirement for participation.

The Wyoming legal challenge broke no new ground. In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that drug testing student athletes at an Oregon school was not a Fourth Amendment violation. In 2002, the high court went further, upholding an Oklahoma school's drug policy for students involved in extracurricular activities other than sports.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in that case, stated, "We find that testing students who participate in extracurricular activities is a reasonably effective means of addressing the school district's legitimate concerns in preventing, determining and detecting drug use."

State District Judge Wade Waldrip ruled that drug testing does not constitute an unreasonable search under either the federal or state constitutions.

"Based on the relationship between students and school authorities, students simply are subject to greater restrictions than are adults and, likewise, lack the complete array of freedoms that adults possess," Waldrip wrote.

Harriet Hageman, the plaintiffs' attorney, said they plan to appeal the decision. They certainly have that right. But for the sake of the public money that will be wasted by the school district if it has to further defend its policy, we hope Goshen County parents and students who joined the lawsuit decide they had their day in court and accept the loss. It could also be very expensive for the plaintiffs, who have very little chance of winning.