U.S. Supreme Court Rules a 5-4 Decision Protecting Principal in BONG HiTS 4 JESUS Debacle

Joseph Frederick, a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School (JDHS), created and displayed a 14-foot banner that read, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at the Olympic Torch Relay as it passed through Juneau, Alaska in 2002. Because this was a unique event, JDHS allowed some of the staff and students to watch as the torch passed through. Principal, Deborah Morse, saw Frederick display the banner and acted how one would expect any principal or school administration to, by grabbing the banner from Frederick and suspended him for ten days following the event.

The Supreme Court ended the Morse v. Frederick case in a 5-4 decision for Principal Deborah Morse. “School officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use” stated Justice Roberts. Upon further review, Fredericks’s message is seen as “cryptic” and was designed to promote the illegal use of marijuana. Justice Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito all voted in favor of Morse leaving Justice Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Beyer voting in favor of Frederick.

The issue at hand involved Frederick's first amendment right of the freedom of speech as this was his choice to display the banner with the phrase “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” on it. This event happened at a school supervised event, but it was not directly on school grounds. Looking back at Tinker v. Des Moines, it is known that students have the right to their own freedom of speech even within the walls of the school as long as it doesn’t present danger or disturbance to other students.

It’s noted that Frederick showed up late to school the morning of Jan. 24, 2002, but once he arrived, he joined his friends as they waited for the Olympic Torch to pass. As the torch approached Frederick’s spot, he revealed the banner which was very easily read and seen by students standing on the opposite side of the street. As Principal Morse approached Frederick, his friends, and the banner, she insisted that it be taken down and everyone, but Frederick complied with Morse.

According to the Juneau School Board Policy No. 5520, it states, “The Board specifically prohibits any assembly or public expression that … advocates the use of substances that are illegal to minors … .” Morse argued that the banner displayed by Frederick was promoting the use of illegal substances. Frederick argued that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” was a part of his freedom of speech and “that the words were just nonsense meant to attract television cameras” claimed Frederick.

The historic Tinker v. Des Moines case is cited as a source in all opinions of this case. The knowledge of the Tinker v. Des Moines case is imperative to this case because, without the ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines, students would not have the Freedom of Speech that they currently do in public schools. Frederick argues that his Freedom of Speech was violated by the principal and in turn, attempted to sue the principal which was not successful.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote and delivered the majority opinion of the court. The rationale explained in the majority opinion is that the school officials (Principals, Staff, and Superintendent) did not violate Frederick's first amendment by confiscating the banner and suspending Frederick because it was a school-sanctioned event.

“Teachers and administrators were interspersed among the students and charged with supervising them. The high school band and cheerleaders performed,” stated Roberts in the majority opinion. Because of these observations and facts, Justice Roberts agreed with the superintendent’s statement that “Frederick cannot ‘stand in the midst of his fellow students, during school hours, at a school-sanctioned activity and claim he is not at school.’”

Morse claimed that upon reading the banner, the message is clear. “We agree with Morse. At least two interpretations of the words on the banner demonstrate that the sign advocated the use of illegal drugs,” stated Roberts. The first interpretation involves the message indicating that marijuana use is important and crucial while the second review the message as a celebratory phrase, promoting drug use in times of celebration.

Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg all speak on the dissenting opinion and explain that their rationale is that the First Amendment needs more information and evidence before the school board disciplines Frederick for “promoting illegal drug use”. The dissenting opinion also makes it known that they are in agreement with the majority opinion in that the principal should not be punished or held liable for removing Fredericks banner from the event.

“The First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students,” stated Justice Souter, “This nonsense banner does neither, and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding—indeed, lauding—a school’s decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed.”

The dissenting opinion also states, “There is absolutely no evidence that Frederick’s banner’s reference to drug paraphernalia “willful[ly]” infringed on anyone’s rights or interfered with any of the school’s educational programs.” With this in mind, Frederick was expressing his right to freedom of speech.

“Frederick’s credible and uncontradicted explanation for the message—he just wanted to get on television—is also relevant because a speaker who does not intend to persuade his audience can hardly be said to be advocating anything,” stated Justice Souter in one of the final points of the dissenting opinion.

Justice Breyer wrote a concurrence and dissent in part stating, “I believe that it should simply hold that qualified immunity bars the student’s claim for monetary damages and say no more.”

Justice Breyer agreed with the dissent in which, “Teachers are neither lawyers nor police officers; and the law should not demand that they fully understand the intricacies of our First Amendment jurisprudence.” Meaning that teachers shouldn’t worry about the intricate works of the first amendment law.

Justice Thomas wrote and delivered the first concurrence of the case while Justice Alito and Justice Kennedy also end up concurring. Justice Thomas agreed that the public school is able to prohibit any speech that advocates and promotes illegal drug use.

Justice Thomas mentioned the legal doctrine Loco Parentis, “courts upheld the right of schools to discipline students, to enforce rules, and to maintain order” which included regulating students’ speech. It was later found that loco parentis limited the infliction of excessive punishment on students which allowed the courts to only diminish the excessively harsh cases. By mentioned loco parentis, it supports Principal Morse’s actions of taking the banner away and suspending Frederick.

“Outside of school, parents can attempt to protect their children in many ways and may take steps to monitor and exercise control over the persons with whom their children associate.” Justice Alito says, “During school hours, however, parents are not present to provide protection and guidance, and students’ movements and their ability to choose the persons with whom they spend time are severely restricted,” showing that schools can be a place of danger for the student.

When students show up for school and speech is used that promotes illegal drug use, it presents a danger to students who may have been sheltered by this type of language. Justice Alito finalized his concurrence by stating, “I, therefore, conclude that the public schools may ban speech advocating illegal drug use.”

Morse v. Frederick involved many other court cases including Tinker v. Des Moines and the legal document of loco parentis. It is imperative that these outside documents and court cases were cited because of how relevant they are to the history of public schools and freedom of speech on school grounds.