Here, the Court finds that the EO, as applied to current employees at the covered agencies, is violative of the Fourth Amendment, and that these employees will suffer irreparable harm if subjected to it. ... The Court also concludes that there is no adequate remedy at law in light of the immeasurable nature of the harm that will flow from the EO’s implementation; were the EO to be implemented, the current employees at the covered agencies would suffer a Fourth Amendment violation that cannot be remedied in monetary terms. “Indeed, one reason for issuing an injunction may be that damages, being immeasurable, will not provide a remedy at law.”

Despite the legal challenge to the EO, the Florida legislature recently passed the Drug-Free Workplace Act [text], which allows state employers to randomly test up to 10 percent of their workforce. The act, set to take effect in July, does not create a "duty" to test, but allows state employers to dismiss or discipline employees the first time they test positive for drugs. Scott signed the bill into law [JURIST report] in March, and a separate legal challenge to the new legislation is expected. Florida is also facing a legal challenge to a different drug-testing law. In October, a judge for the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida [official website] temporarily blocked [JURIST report] a new Florida law that had required welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits. Judge Mary Scriven said that the law might violate applicants' Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures. The ACLU-FL and the Florida Justice Institute [advocacy website] filed the challenge [JURIST report] in September.