The U.S. Supreme Court today, in a case generating five separate written opinions, decided that Juneau, Alaska school officials did not violate a student's free speech rights when they confiscated a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" that the student displayed at the at the Olympic Torch Relay through town. School officials approved and supervised student attendance at the event which took place during school hours In Morse v. Frederick, (S.Ct., June 25, 2007), Chief Justice Roberts opinion, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, 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".
Justice Thomas' concurring opinion argued that the Tinker case-- the basis for protection of the speech rights of school students-- should be overruled. Justices Alito and Kennedy joined the majority opinion "on the understanding that (a) it goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as 'the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.'"
Justice Breyer argued that the Court should not have gotten to the merits, but should have merely held that defendants' had qualified immunity from plaintiff's claim for monetary damages. CNN among others reports on today's decision.
Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg. Stevens wrote: "I agree with the Court that the principal should not beheld liable for pulling down Frederick’s banner.... I would hold, however, that the school’s interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech 'reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use,' ... cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs."
The narrow grounds on which the Court decided the case is unlikely to make it a case which has substantial implications for student religious speech-- a concern that some had expressed as the case was pending.
