The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case that tries to balance the safety and health of students with their individual privacy interests. At issue is whether Arizona school officials were justified in strip-searching a 13 year-old girl for prescription drugs on another student's tip.

The nine justices were very curious about the line between security and privacy rights.

During the arguments, Justice Scalia asked if schools could justify searches of body cavities. The school district's lawyer said that school officials aren't clinically trained to do those kinds of searches, but conceded they could if the local community agreed to it.

The National Law Journal's Marcia Coyle explains the case and its implications for power limits on school officials.

"The Supreme Court has said that students don't check their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door, but the court doesn't provide the same degree of protection under certain constitutional amendments to students that it does to adults." - Marcia Coyle, Supreme Court reporter

"School administrators are tasked with the responsibility to care for the kids in their care, custody and control. And they stand much like a parent stands in their stead while they're at school." - Attorney for the Arizona School District

1. Do school officials in your district have the right to search a student if they suspect the student has drugs? Why or why not?

2. Who is responsible for keeping you safe while you are at school?

3. What are some rights in the Constitution that affect what happens in a school?

1. Do you think the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the student or the school? Why?

2. How might the ruling affect policy at your school?

3. Find out how your principal feels about this case. Do you agree or disagree? Take a poll in your class.

4. Find out more about two cases that inform this case: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, in which justices considered whether it was constitutional for John and Mary Beth Tinker to be suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War; and New Jersey v T.L.O. in which the court ruled that school officials only need a "reasonable suspicion" to do a search. How is this case different from those cases?