Justice Presentation

Case Brief:Morse v. Frederick

First Amendment: Free Speech and Student Rights By: Jana Harrison M.S. EPL6340-701-1247 Dr. Black

START

case citation

Morse v. Frederick551 U.S. 393 (2007)

Parties involved

Deborah MorsePrincipal

Joseph Frederick Student

Facts of the case

• Joseph Frederick, a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, displayed a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" during the Olympic Torch Relay in Juneau, Alaska, on January 24, 2002.

• Although they were across the street from the school, Frederick's attendance at the event was part of a school-supervised activity.

• Deborah Morse, the school principal, went over to Frederick and told him to put the banner away, fearing it would be interpreted as the school advocating for illegal drug activity.

• Frederick refused to comply and Morse took the banner from him.

• Frederick was initially given 5 days of suspension. Still, after arguing that his rights were being violated he was given 10 days for violating school policy which forbids advocating the use of illegal drugs.

Legal issue

• Do school authorities violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by restricting student speech at a school-supervised event when the speech may be viewed as promoting illegal drug use?

• Did the school’s prohibition of Frederick’s banner violate his First Amendment rights?

rulings

Lower Court Rulings

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska (2006) The court ruled in favor of Joseph Frederick, affirming that his banner, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," is protected free speech under the First Amendment. The court determined that Frederick's expression did not disrupt the school environment and underscored the need to safeguard student expression, even when it conveyed controversial or anti-establishment views.

Ninth Circuit Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2007) The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling, asserting that Frederick's suspension violated his First Amendment rights. The court highlighted that the school did not demonstrate that Frederick's speech would likely cause substantial disruption, referencing Tinker v. Des Moines as a precedent. The Ninth Circuit emphasized the necessity of protecting student expression, especially when it does not promote illegal activities or directly threaten school order.

Supreme Court

VIDEO

The Supreme Court delivered a ruling in favor of Morse, affirming that educational institutions possess the authority to impose restrictions on student expression that advocate for the use of illegal substances. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining a safe and conducive learning environment, free from the influence of illegal drug use. Vote: The ruling was reached with a narrow margin, resulting in a 5-4 decision.

Justice Samuel Alito

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Concurrence

Justices Alito and Kennedy concurred with the majority, but were careful to note that the majority's decision was at the outer parameters of constitutionally protected behavior. These justices 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, but unpopular, political ideas, e.g., legalizing medicinal marijuana use. Through a scheme, to tell everything in a orderly way.

Clarence Thomas-argued that the First Ammendment was never written to protect students. Felt Tinker should be overturned.

Dissent

Justice Stevens

.

• The school's 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 an ambiguous statement simply because it refers to drugs.
• Prohibiting free speech because it promotes illegal drug use violates 1st Amendment rights.
• Banner was vague so a "reasonable" person couldn't assume that it advocated illegal drug use.

Discussion

Should students be entitled to the same rights as adults while on school property or attending school-supervised events?

Do you think that principals should be granted immunity for violating constitutional rights if, in their judgment, a situation calls for immediate action? What would you have done if you were the administrator?

'When you give a boring presentation, you only hear the snores of your audience and there's so much text that there's no room for even a single image.' -Genially

'When you give a boring presentation, you only hear the snores of your audience and there's so much text that there's no room for even a single image.' -Genially