Argued: March 19, 2007 Decided: June 25, =2&i= &w=580&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r= images.morris.com/images/juneau/mdControlled/cm s/2009/03/22/ jpg

Issue Under Debate: Limits on student speech in public schools

Juneau-Douglas High School Juneau, Alaska

Olympic Torch Relay Juneau, Alaska, January 24,2002

Joseph Frederick

Joseph Frederick

Amendment Discussed The 1 st Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Free Speech Clause Frederick believes his free speech was confiscated along with banner Frederick filed a suit in the federal court against Morse and the school district arguing his 1 st amendment rights had been violated

U.S. District Court Ruling Frederick filed a suit against Morse and the school district arguing his First Amendment rights had been violated Plaintiff: Frederick Defendants: Morse and the school board The District Court found no constitutional violation and ruled for Morse The court help that even if there was a violation, the principal had qualified immunity from lawsuit Qualified immunity prevents government officials from being sued for actions taken in their office capacities Frederick appealed to the U.S. Appeals Court

US Court of Appeals U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Frederick’s banner was constitutionally protected (minority opinion) Principal had no qualified immunity, or protection Principal Morse and the school appealed to the supreme court

Opinion of the Court: Majority Created by Chief Justice G. Roberts The Constitution affords lesser protections to certain types of student speech at school or at school-supervised events The court said the phrase, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” could be reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Born January 27, 1955 in Buffalo, New York Attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School 17 th and current Supreme Court Chief Justice of the United States Appointed by George W. Bush Took seat on September 29, fficial_roberts_CJ.jpg

The Dissent, Or Opposition to Majority Written by Justice John Paul Stevens The schools interest in protecting students from speech that can be reasonably regarded as promoting drug use does not justify Frederick’s punishment for his attempt to make a vague statement simply because it refers to drugs Prohibiting speech because it advocates illegal drug use, unless it is likely to provoke harm sought to be avoided by the government, violates the First Amendment because is it impermissibly discriminates based upon content Even if the school has a compelling interest to prohibit such speech, Frederick’s banner was so vague that a reasonable person could not assume that it advocated illegal drug use

Concurrences and Their Opinions Justice Thomas: argued that the First Amendment was never meant to protect student speech in public schools Justices Alito and Kennedy: they were concerned that the majority’s decision permitting the suppression of speech promoting illegal drug use could be used to punish those advocating constitutionally permissible political ideas such as legalizing medical marijuana

Concurrence and Dissent written by Justice Stephen Breyer Majority did not need to decide this case on its facts, but could have decided it on the basis of eligible freedom and protection Since it was unclear whether Frederick’s speech was constitutionally protected, Morse was entitled to qualified immunity, and freedom and protection

Supreme Court Decision The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on Friday, December 1, 2006 The case was argued Monday, March 19, 2007 The majority acknowledged that the Constitution afford lesser protections to school-supervised events Finding that the message Frederick displayed was by his own admission was not political The court said the phrase could be viewed as promoting illegal drug use

Who won the case? Deborah Morse and the Juneau School Board won by a vote of 5-4. The Supreme Court held that the "school speech" doctrine applied, allowing greater restriction of students' free speech, because the incident occurred at a school-sponsored event during the school day, among other students

Impact on Constitution Law The Supreme Court held that schools may “take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use” without fear of violating a student’s First Amendment rights In school, the right to free speech is allowed only if the free speech does not disturb school activities

The Dispute: Can a school punish a student for what he said about drugs during an off-campus, but school-supervised event? Does the first amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying pro-drug messages during a school-supervised event? Do you think this was a joke or was Frederick trying to support marijuana?