morsevfrederick

(U.S., 2007) __Facts__:
 * Morse v. Frederick**
 * At a school event, D (Joseph Frederick) unfurled a banner that stated "BONG HITS 4 JESUS." P (Principal Deborah Morse), believing the banner promoted illegal drug use, asked the students to take it down. D (Frederick) at first refused, then complied. P (Morse) confiscated the banner and later suspended D (Frederick).
 * Frederick appealed to the superintendent and then to the school board; both upheld the suspension.
 * Frederick sued the school board and Morse for violating his First Amendment right to free speech. District Court found no violation, but the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision, citing Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Ninth Circuit said that Frederick had been punished for the message, not for causing a "substantial disruption." In addition, it found that Morse did not have qualified immunity because Frederick's right to display the banner was so clearly established that a reasonable principal would have understood her actions were unconstitutional. Morse and the school board appealed to the Supreme Court.

__Issues / Answers__:
 * Does the First Amendment allow schools to prohibit their students from promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events? Yes.
 * Do school officials have qualified immunity from a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 when they discipline a student for displaying a banner with a drug reference at a school-supervised event? Not determined.

__Basis / Rationale__: 2) Tinker's "special characteristics of the school environment" is at work because the principal restricted student expression in order to stop the promotion of student drug abuse.
 * Legal basis – 1) Fraser: "the constitutional rights of students in public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other students."
 * Rationale - A principal may restrict student speech at a school event when the speech is reasonably seen to promote illegal drug abuse.

__Notes__:
 * 5-4 ruling. Stevens wrote the dissent, arguing that the majority opinion was, "…dead to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high-school students…."
 * Tinker's "substantial disruption" standard was not applied by the SC, just as in Fraser.