On The Front Lines
U.S. Supreme Court Denies First Amendment Free Speech Rights of Student Punished for Displaying 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' Banner at City Rally
WASHINGTON, DC -- In a 5-4 decision in Morse v. Frederick, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public school officials do not violate a student's free speech rights when they punish the student for words or actions that promote a drug message. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had filed a "friend of the court" brief in defense of the First Amendment rights of high school student Joseph Frederick, who was punished for displaying what school officials deemed "offensive" material at a non-school-related rally. The Institute's brief called on the Supreme Court to affirm that school officials violated the First Amendment when they suspended Frederick for holding up a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at an Olympic Torch Relay procession.
A copy of the Institute's brief is available here.
"It is unfortunate that the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to depart from its long-held practice of protecting the free speech rights of students," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "However, the decision should have a limited effect because it applies only to student speech that promotes illegal drug use."
In January 2002, officials at Juneau-Douglas High School allowed students to leave school in order to attend the Winter Olympics Torch Relay, which was sponsored by private businesses. Before going to school, senior high school student Joseph Frederick attended the rally to watch the Olympic torch as it was carried through the streets of Juneau, Alaska, on its way to Salt Lake City. While at the rally, Frederick stood on a public sidewalk and held up the banner "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."
Despite the fact that the rally was not sponsored by the school and Frederick was not on school grounds, school officials suspended Frederick for 10 days because the banner's message was contrary to the school district's anti-drug educational mission. Although a federal trial court ruled in favor of the school district and its principal, Deborah Morse, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling, holding that the school's suspension violated Frederick's First Amendment rights. In filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, Institute attorneys asked the Justices to uphold the Ninth Circuit's ruling and reject the idea that schools may punish students for expression that is perceived to be offensive, no matter where it occurs.
In citing a 1993 ruling by Judge Frank Easterbrook, Institute attorneys noted, "When challenging or offensive ideas are raised in schools under the umbrella of free speech, '[t]he school's proper response is to educate the audience rather than squelch the speaker.'" Furthermore, as Institute attorneys concluded, "The public schools cannot be expected to cure all of America's social ills. There is, and there must remain, a line over which school administrators cannot transgress into the views and daily lives of students and parents. That line is the schoolhouse gate, or where students cease to act as formal representatives of the school system. Absent the direct and substantial disruption of the normal function of the school, the discipline of students away from school is the job of parents and law enforcement officers, not school officials."
