WASHINGTON -- The now departed Bush administration’s invasive and degrading strip-search drug testing regulation affecting rail and transit workers, which is opposed by the UTU, other rail unions and BNSF Railway, is now headed for a review by an appellate court here, with a hearing scheduled for March 26

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia previously issued a delay in implementing the rule, which will remain on hold pending the appellate review.

The rule, as written by the Bush administration DOT last year, would require strip searches of rail and transit workers during certain mandatory drug testing.

The UTU and the other rail unions maintain it violates the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches.

The Bush administration DOT wrote the rule to require direct observation of urine specimen collection in all cases involving a return-to-duty test following a positive drug test and a follow-up test after a positive drug test.

This rule initially was scheduled to take effect last Aug. 25, but DOT voluntarily and only temporarily delayed implementation, and then the appellate court issued its further delay pending its ruling that will occur after the March 26 hearing.

Under current and still effective rules, a rail carrier has the discretion to require direct observation during an individual return-to-duty or follow-up test, but is not required to do so.

The Bush administration DOT sought to replace this discretion with the mandatory-observation rule.

The rule, on hold pending the court decision, would require a strip search in all instances of direct observation.

Specifically, the currently delayed DOT rule would require that a same-sex observer employed by the railroad "request the employee to raise his or her shirt, blouse, or dress/skirt, as appropriate, above the waist; and lower clothing and underpants to show, by turning around, that they do not have a prosthetic device [that could be used to deliver a substituted urine specimen]."

After the observer has "determined that the employee does not have such a device, [it] may permit the employee to return clothing to its proper position for observed urination," according to the challenged rule.

Other rail unions opposing the rule include the American Train Dispatchers Association, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, the Brotherhood of Maintenance Way Employees Division, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the National Conference of Firemen & Oilers, and the Transportation Communications International Union.