Not "banned" from school, but "transitioned" to remote learning. Interesting to see how this will be challenged in court. Students don't really have much of a Fourth Amendment interest against randomized drug testing post-Earls. See, Bd. of Ed. Ind. Sch. Dist. Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) (holding that a universal drug testing policy that all students in competitive extracurriculars randomly submit to drug testing does not violate the Fourth Amendment). You could maybe mount Fourteenth Amendment due process challenge against it, but I'm not versed enough in that field to speculate how it would turn out.
Not "banned" from school, but "transitioned" to remote learning. Interesting to see how this will be challenged in court. Students don't really have much of a Fourth Amendment interest against randomized drug testing post-Earls. See, Bd. of Ed. Ind. Sch. Dist. Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) (holding that a universal drug testing policy that all students in competitive extracurriculars randomly submit to drug testing does not violate the Fourth Amendment). You could maybe mount Fourteenth Amendment due process challenge against it, but I'm not versed enough in that field to speculate how it would turn out.