Morse v. Frederick

Jump to content

Coordinates : 58°18′21″N 134°25′45″W / 58.3057°N 134.4291°W / 58.3057; -134.4291

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2007 U.S. Supreme Court case on student speech

2007 United States Supreme Court case

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case where the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from prohibiting or punishing student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use at a school-sanctioned event.[1] [2]

In 2002, Juneau-Douglas High School principal Deborah Morse suspended student Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" across the street from the school during the 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay .[3] Frederick sued, claiming his constitutional rights to free speech were violated. His suit was dismissed by the federal district court , but on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling, concluding that Frederick's speech rights were violated. The case then went on to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts , writing for the majority, concluded that school officials did not violate the First Amendment for three reasons. First, under the existing school speech precedents _Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District _ (1969), _Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser _ (1986) and _Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier _ (1988), students do have free speech rights in school,[4] but those rights are subject to limitations in the school environment that would not apply to the speech rights of adults outside school.[5] Second, the "school speech " doctrine applied because Frederick's speech occurred at a school-supervised event. Finally, the Court held that the speech could be restricted in a school environment, even though it was not disruptive under the Tinker standard, because "the government interest in stopping student drug abuse...allow[s] schools to restrict student expression that they reasonably regard as promoting illegal drug use."[2] [6] [7]

Background and procedural history

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morse_v._Frederick&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background and procedural history")
]

The original banner hung in the Newseum in Washington, DC.

On January 24, 2002, students and staff at Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska were permitted to leave classes to watch the Olympic Torch pass by as part of the 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay . Joseph Frederick, who was late for school that day, joined some friends on the sidewalk across from the high school, off school grounds.[8] Frederick and his friends waited for the television cameras to reach their location so they could unfurl a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS". Frederick was quoted as saying he had first seen the phrase on a snowboard sticker. When they displayed the banner, then-principal Deborah Morse ran across the street and seized it.[9]

Morse initially suspended Frederick for five days for violating the school district's anti-drug policy, but increased the suspension to ten days after Frederick quoted Thomas Jefferson . Frederick administratively appealed his suspension to the superintendent who denied his claim but limited it to the time Frederick had already spent out of school prior to his appeal (eight days). Frederick then appealed to the Juneau School Board, which upheld the suspension on March 19, 2002.

District court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morse_v._Frederick&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: District court")
]

On April 25, 2002, Frederick filed a civil rights lawsuit (under 42 U.S.C.  § 1983 ) against Morse and the school board, claiming they violated his federal and state constitutional rights to free speech.[3] He sought declaratory relief (on the applicability of his First Amendment rights), injunctive relief (to remove his ten-day suspension from his school records), and monetary awards (compensatory damages , punitive damages , and attorney's fees ).[10]

The United States District Court for the District of Alaska dismissed Frederick's case on summary judgment .[11] The district court reasoned that _Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser _ governed Frederick's school speech . Under this precedent, the Court ruled that, given the stipulated facts, Morse and the school board had not infringed Frederick's First Amendment rights, because Morse had reasonably interpreted the banner as contravening the school's policies on drug abuse prevention.[10] Frederick appealed this ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals .

Ninth Circuit

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morse_v._Frederick&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Ninth Circuit")
]

The Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court. The unanimous panel decision was written by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld .[12] First, the Court decided that the incident should be interpreted under school speech doctrines, even though Frederick was standing across the street, and not on school grounds.[13]

Thus, for Judge Kleinfeld, "the question comes down to whether a school may, in the absence of concern about disruption of educational activities, punish and censor non-disruptive, off-campus speech by students during school-authorized activities because the speech promotes a social message contrary to the one favored by the school. The answer under controlling, long-existing precedent is plainly 'No'."[13] To reach this determination, the Court inquired whether Frederick's constitutional rights were violated. The circuit court, in opposition to the district court, held that _Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District _ was the more relevant precedent.

Certiorari and oral arguments

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morse_v._Frederick&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Certiorari and oral arguments")
]

The school board petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision, with Juneau school district superintendent Peggy Cowan stating, "My concern is that [the court's ruling] could compromise our ability to send a consistent message against the use of illegal drugs."[14] On December 1, 2006, the Court accepted the case.[15]

Oral arguments were heard on the morning of March 19, 2007.[16] Kenneth Starr first spoke on behalf of the petitioning school principal. He described the rule in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District as allowing speech by school students but "that the speech not be disruptive". He defined disruptiveness in general terms as behavior inimical to the educational mission of the school, and in specific terms as a violation of the school's announced policy to enforce and support laws with respect to the

…