Bong Hits 4 Jesus
Encyclopedia
Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393
(2007) was a school speech case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment
does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, at a school-supervised event, that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.
In 2002, high school principal Deborah Morse suspended 18-year-old Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" across the street from the school during the 2002
Olympic Torch Relay. 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, concluding that Frederick's speech rights were violated.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment. To do so, he made three legal determinations: first, that "school speech
" doctrine should apply because Frederick's speech occurred "at a school event"; second, that the speech was "reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use"; and third, that a principal may legally restrict that speech—based on the three existing First Amendment school speech precedents, other Constitutional jurisprudence relating to schools, and a school's "important—indeed, perhaps compelling interest" in deterring drug use by students.
One scholar noted that "by its plain language, Morse's holding is narrow in that it expressly applies only to student speech promoting illegal drug use". She adds, however, that courts could nonetheless apply it to other student speech that, like speech encouraging illegal drug use, similarly undermines schools' educational missions or threatens students' safety. "Further, Morse arguably permits viewpoint discrimination of purely political speech whenever that speech mentions illegal drugs - a result seemingly at odds with the First Amendment."
were permitted to leave classes
Morse initially suspended Frederick for five days for violating the school district's anti-drug policy, but later increased the suspension to ten days after Frederick quoted Thomas Jefferson. Frederick administratively appealed his suspension to the superintendent, who denied his appeal but limited it to the time Frederick had already spent out of school prior to his appeal to the superintendent (eight days). Frederick then appealed to the Juneau School Board, which upheld the suspension on March 19, 2002.
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. He sought a declaratory relief
(for a declaratory judgment that his First Amendment rights had been violated), injunctive
relief (for an injunction to remove the reference to the ten day suspension from his school records), and monetary awards (compensatory damages, punitive damages
, and attorney's fee
s).
The United States District Court for the District of Alaska
dismissed Frederick's case on summary judgment
. The district court reasoned that Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, as opposed to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
, governed Frederick's school speech. Under this premise, 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.The Court also ruled that, if Frederick's constitutional rights had been violated, Appellees had qualified immunity
.
reversed the decision of the District Court. The unanimous panel decision was written by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld.
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.
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.'" To reach this determination, the Court inquired whether Frederick's constitutional rights were violated.. The Court, in holding (contra the District Court) that Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
provided the controlling analysis, distinguished Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. The Court explained:
Oral arguments were heard on the morning of March 19, 2007. 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 "that there is a right to political speech subject to disruption—that the speech not be disruptive". He defined the disruptiveness in general terms as behavior inimical to the educational mission of the school, and in specific terms as violation of the school's announced policy to enforce and support laws with respect to control of marijuana (and other laws in general). Starr also cited the cases of Bethel School District v. Fraser
, and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
, .
Starr noted that in Tinker there was no written policy; it was an issue of "standardless discretion" being exercised. That case was said to be concerned with school disciplinary actions "casting a pall of orthodoxy to prevent the discussion of ideas". Justice Souter
remarked that 'Bong Hits 4 JESUS' "sounds like just a kid's provocative statement to me". Starr responded by saying "the key is to allow the school official to interpret the message as long as that interpretation is reasonable".
Deputy Solicitor-General Edwin Kneedler
spoke on behalf of the U.S. government in support of the petitioner. He said: "The First Amendment does not require public school officials to stand aside and permit students who are entrusted to their supervision and care to promote or encourage the illegal use of drugs." He cited the cases of Board of Education v. Earls
and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier in his favor.
Douglas K. Mertz, of Juneau, Alaska, for the respondent opened, "This is a case about free speech. It is not about drugs." Chief Justice
John Roberts
responded: "It's a case about money. Your client wants money from the principal personally for her actions in this case." Mertz emphasized that the torch relay was not school-sponsored; that he had not stepped on school property at all before unfurling the banner; that "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" was intended to be—and was regarded as—purely a humorous message; and that the unfurling of the banner did not cause any disruption. Based on these facts, he concludes, his case "does not present the issue of school authority over student expressions on campus or in a school-sponsored activity".
Starr rebutted. He cited Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
and Board of Education v. Earls as cases demonstrative of the Court's strong past stances on matter related to combating the 'scourge of drugs'. In closing and in summary he said:
" doctrine should apply because Frederick's speech occurred "at a school event"; Part III determined that the speech was "reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use"; and Part IV, inquired whether a principal may legally restrict that speech, concluding that she could—under the three existing First Amendment school speech precedents, other Constitutional jurisprudence relating to schools, and a school's "important—indeed, perhaps compelling interest" in deterring drug use by students.
" -- rejecting "at the outset" Frederick's contention that the case should instead be considered under ordinary free-speech jurisprudence. While conceding that past precedent reflects "some uncertainty at the outer boundaries as to when courts should apply school-speech precedents", Roberts added: "but not on these facts." Roberts reiterated the circumstances, then explained: "Under these circumstances, we agree with the superintendent 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.'"
And even if that second interpretation does not support the princial’s conclusions that the banner advocated the use of illegal drugs,
Wrapping up this discussion, Roberts rejected the two alternative accounts for Frederick’s speech provided in the dissent: first, the dissent noted that Frederick “just wanted to get on television,” which it characterized as a “credible and uncontradicted explanation for the message.” Roberts rejoined: “But that is a description of Frederick’s motive for displaying the banner; it is not an interpretation of what the banner says.” Second, the dissent emphasized the importance of political speech and the need to foster “national debate about a serious issue.” Roberts rejoined that “not even Frederick argues that the banner conveys any sort of political or religious message;” “this is plainly not a case about political debate over the criminalization of drug use or possession.”
He began by reviewing the court’s school speech
jurisprudence:
Roberts then cited cases that cited Tinker in the course of interpreting the qualified status that other Constitutional rights acquire in schools -- Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, New Jersey v. T. L. O.
, Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls. In light of these concerns, Roberts devoted his lengthiest analysis to the government’s "important—indeed, perhaps compelling interest” in deterring drug use by students. To this point, the opinion cited statistics illustrating the problems of youth drug abuse. It further noted that part of a school’s educational mission is "to educate students about the dangers of illegal drugs and to discourage their use.” The District Court also noted "peer pressure is perhaps ‘the single most important factor leading school children to take drugs.’” The Court’s interpretation of Frederick’s banner deemed the banner as a type of peer pressure. Based on these concerns, the opinion concluded that the principal’s actions were motivated by a "serious and palpable” danger of drug abuse quite different from the amorphous fears of anti-war sentiment at play in Tinker.Morse v. Frederick, slip op. at 14.
In Tinker, the school principal had punished students for wearing black anti-war armbands based on his "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance” or "mere desire to avoid... discomfort and unpleasantness.” Here, however, the concern about student drug abuse "extends well beyond an abstract desire to avoid controversy.” Principal Morse’s failure to act against the banner "would send a powerful message to the students in her charge, including Frederick, about how serious the school was about the dangers of illegal drug use.” The First Amendment, concluded the opinion, "does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers.”
wrote a concurrence that argued that students in public schools do not have a right to free speech and that Tinker should be overturned. Thomas wrote, "In my view, the history of public education suggests that the First Amendment, as originally understood, does not protect student speech in public schools." He praises Hugo Black
's dissenting opinion on Tinker and called it "prophetic". Thomas cited the doctrine of in loco parentis, meaning "in place of the parent", in his opinion. He traced the history of public education in America back to its colonial roots. According to Thomas, because originally public schools were intended to substitute for private tutors, public schools could discipline students as they liked and had a far stronger hand in what happened in the classroom. "In short", he continues, "in the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed." He opined that because parents entrusted the care of their children to teachers, teachers have a right to act in the place of parents during school hours. Therefore, teachers should be able to discipline students if necessary. Thomas lambasted Tinker for "usurping [the local school district as a] traditional authority for the judiciary". Thomas believed that Frederick was neither speaking gibberish nor openly advocating drug use, but granting such an impertinence constitutional protection "would ... be to 'surrender control of the American public school system to public school students.'"
Justice Samuel Alito
, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy
, wrote a concurrence indicating that he agreed with the majority opinion to the extent that:
Alito agreed that Morse did not violate Frederick's First Amendment rights and emphasized in his concurrence that the holding only applies to students who advocate illegal drug use. He opposed the "educational mission" and in loco parentis analysis in favor of a "special characteristic" of schools which he identifies to be ensuring the physical safety of the students. Alito concluded that an exception must be made to the First Amendment free speech guarantee to protect the students; since according to Alito, advocating illegal drugs possibly leads to violence. But Alito insisted that this small reduction of what is protected by the First Amendment is "at the far reaches of what the First Amendment permits".
concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, arguing that the Court should not have directly answered the First Amendment question in the case, but rather decided it based on qualified immunity
. Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense
that requires courts to enter judgment in favor of a government employee accused of violating individual rights unless the employee's conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Because it was not clear whether the school principal's actions in taking down the banner violated the First Amendment, Breyer would have simply issued a narrow decision indicating that she was shielded by qualified immunity and gone no further.
, in a dissent joined by Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg, argued that "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." Stevens wrote:
Stevens criticized the majority decision as one that "trivializes the two cardinal principles upon which Tinker rests", because it "upholds a punishment meted out on the basis of a listener's disagreement with her understanding (or, more likely, misunderstanding) of the speaker's viewpoint."Stevens, J., dissenting, slip op. at 5. Moreover, he noted, "Encouraging drug use might well increase the likelihood that a listener will try an illegal drug, but that hardly justifies censorship." "[C]arving out pro-drug speech for uniquely harsh treatment," wrote Stevens, "finds no support in our case law and is inimical to the values protected by the First Amendment."
Stevens also took issue with the majority's interpretation of the banner as being a serious incitement to drug use:
Stevens argued that it would be "profoundly unwise to create special rules for speech about drug and alcohol use", pointing to the historical examples of both opposition to the Vietnam War
and resistance to Prohibition
in the 1920s. Pointing to the current debate over medical marijuana
, Stevens concluded, "Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting—however inarticulately—that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely."
, former Dean at Pepperdine University School of Law, and who argued for Morse before the Supreme Court, introduced a symposium about the case noting that Chief Justice Roberts "sought to keep the decision quite narrow," limiting the case "to the issue of public school administrators' ability to keep the educational process free from messages about illegal drugs" and drawing from the Court's existing student speech jurisprudence that "permitted school administrators broad discretion to keep out of the educational environment antisocial messages celebrating drug use."
participated in the same symposium, exploring how this decision would be understood and applied by school officials, school boards, and lower court judges. He suggested that the opinion was misguided and - from a First Amendment perspective - highly undesirable, arguing that the decision cannot be justified under existing First Amendment principles, that it could be seen as authorizing punishment of students for speech that is deemed distasteful or offensive, even just juvenile. However, he noted Justice Alito's concurring opinion, which suggests that the majority opinion might be exceedingly narrow and based on a very unusual factual context; Chemerinsky noted that if Justice Alito's opinion is seen as defining the scope of the holding, then the case establishes only the power of schools to punish speech encouraging illegal drug use rather than giving school officials great discretion to punish student speech. Thus, despite the fact that Morse v. Frederick is consistent with decisions from the Supreme Court and lower federal courts over the last two decades, his hope is that Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion will be read through the prism of Justice Alito's concurring opinion, thereby having little effect on the already very limited First Amendment rights of students.
directly participated in this case on the side of Joseph Frederick. The Center for Individual Rights
, National Coalition Against Censorship
, and other groups that advocate First Amendment protection filed amici curiae
in support of Frederick. Students for Sensible Drug Policy
also noted that banning drug-related speech would undermine their ability to have chapters in public schools. The American Center for Law and Justice
, and Rutherford Institute
, and several other Christian right
groups also filed briefs on the side of Frederick, reasoning that if schools could ban "offensive" speech they would also be able to prohibit religious speech with which administrators disagree. On this point, the Christian right groups prevailed, as the Supreme Court explicitly declined to hold that school boards could discipline "offensive" speech, noting that "much political and religious speech might be perceived as offensive to some" and the concern is "not that Frederick's speech was offensive, but that it was reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use."
The National School Boards Association
supports Morse and the Juneau school district, arguing that schools should be able to regulate controversial speech. U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement
filed an amicus brief in support of the school district's decision to prohibit controversial speech.
On March 19, 2007, Students for Sensible Drug Policy organized a widely-publicized free speech rally at the Supreme Court during oral arguments. The Drug Policy Alliance
and the National Youth Rights Association
assisted with the rally, which brought dozens of students from across the country to the court steps.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2007) was a school speech case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, at a school-supervised event, that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.
In 2002, high school principal Deborah Morse suspended 18-year-old Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" across the street from the school during the 2002
2002 Winter Olympics
The 2002 Winter Olympics, officially the XIX Olympic Winter Games, were a winter multi-sport event that was celebrated in February 2002 in and around Salt Lake City, Utah, United States. Approximately 2,400 athletes from 77 nations participated in 78 events in fifteen disciplines, held throughout...
Olympic Torch Relay. 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
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a U.S. federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Alaska* District of Arizona...
reversed, concluding that Frederick's speech rights were violated.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment. To do so, he made three legal determinations: first, that "school speech
School speech (First Amendment)
The issue of school speech as it relates to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is one that has been of much debate and the subject of much litigation since the mid-20th century.-School speech vs. public speech:...
" doctrine should apply because Frederick's speech occurred "at a school event"; second, that the speech was "reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use"; and third, that a principal may legally restrict that speech—based on the three existing First Amendment school speech precedents, other Constitutional jurisprudence relating to schools, and a school's "important—indeed, perhaps compelling interest" in deterring drug use by students.
One scholar noted that "by its plain language, Morse's holding is narrow in that it expressly applies only to student speech promoting illegal drug use". She adds, however, that courts could nonetheless apply it to other student speech that, like speech encouraging illegal drug use, similarly undermines schools' educational missions or threatens students' safety. "Further, Morse arguably permits viewpoint discrimination of purely political speech whenever that speech mentions illegal drugs - a result seemingly at odds with the First Amendment."
Background and procedural history
On January 23, 2002, students and staff at Juneau-Douglas High SchoolJuneau-Douglas High School
Juneau-Douglas High School is one of two high schools in Juneau, Alaska. It is the primary high school for the Juneau School District. The other high school, Thunder Mountain High School, is smaller, and most of its students are from the Mendenhall Valley...
were permitted to leave classes
Morse initially suspended Frederick for five days for violating the school district's anti-drug policy, but later increased the suspension to ten days after Frederick quoted Thomas Jefferson. Frederick administratively appealed his suspension to the superintendent, who denied his appeal but limited it to the time Frederick had already spent out of school prior to his appeal to the superintendent (eight days). Frederick then appealed to the Juneau School Board, which upheld the suspension on March 19, 2002.
District court
On April 25, 2002, Frederick filed a civil rightsCivil Rights Act of 1871
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, , enacted April 20, 1871, is a federal law in force in the United States. The Act was originally enacted a few years after the American Civil War, along with the 1870 Force Act. One of the chief reasons for its passage was to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux...
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. He sought a declaratory relief
Declaratory relief
Declaratory relief is a judge's determination of the parties' rights under a contract or a statute, often requested in a lawsuit over a contract. In theory, an early resolution of legal rights will resolve some or all of the other issues in the matter....
(for a declaratory judgment that his First Amendment rights had been violated), injunctive
Injunction
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions...
relief (for an injunction to remove the reference to the ten day suspension from his school records), and monetary awards (compensatory damages, punitive damages
Punitive damages
Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit...
, and attorney's fee
Attorney's fee
Attorney's fee is a chiefly United States term for compensation for legal services performed by an attorney for a client, in or out of court. It may be an hourly, flat-rate or contingent fee. Attorney fees are separate from fines, compensatory and punitive damages, and from court costs in a...
s).
The United States District Court for the District of Alaska
United States District Court for the District of Alaska
The United States District Court for the District of Alaska is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction is the state of Alaska. Offices are located in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, and Nome...
dismissed Frederick's case on summary judgment
Summary judgment
In law, a summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued as to the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case....
. The district court reasoned that Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, as opposed to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools...
, governed Frederick's school speech. Under this premise, 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
Drug abuse
Substance abuse, also known as drug abuse, refers to a maladaptive pattern of use of a substance that is not considered dependent. The term "drug abuse" does not exclude dependency, but is otherwise used in a similar manner in nonmedical contexts...
prevention.The Court also ruled that, if Frederick's constitutional rights had been violated, Appellees had qualified immunity
Qualified immunity
Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal law that arises in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 . Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the...
.
Ninth Circuit
The Ninth CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a U.S. federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Alaska* District of Arizona...
reversed the decision of the District Court. The unanimous panel decision was written by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld.
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.
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.'" To reach this determination, the Court inquired whether Frederick's constitutional rights were violated.. The Court, in holding (contra the District Court) that Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools...
provided the controlling analysis, distinguished Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. The Court explained:
Public response
Juneau school district superintendent Peggy Cowan stated, "My concern is that [the court's ruling] could compromise our ability to send a consistent message against the use of illegal drugs."Certiorari and oral arguments
The school board petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision. On December 1, 2006, the Court accepted the case.Oral arguments were heard on the morning of March 19, 2007. Kenneth Starr
Kenneth Starr
Kenneth Winston "Ken" Starr is an American lawyer and educational administrator who has also been a federal judge. He is best known for his investigation of figures during the Clinton administration....
first spoke on behalf of the petitioning school principal. He described the rule in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools...
, as "that there is a right to political speech subject to disruption—that the speech not be disruptive". He defined the disruptiveness in general terms as behavior inimical to the educational mission of the school, and in specific terms as violation of the school's announced policy to enforce and support laws with respect to control of marijuana (and other laws in general). Starr also cited the cases of Bethel School District v. Fraser
Bethel School District v. Fraser
Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 , was a United States Supreme Court decision involving free speech and public schools. Matthew Fraser was suspended from school for making a speech full of sexual double entendres at a school assembly...
, and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection...
, .
Starr noted that in Tinker there was no written policy; it was an issue of "standardless discretion" being exercised. That case was said to be concerned with school disciplinary actions "casting a pall of orthodoxy to prevent the discussion of ideas". Justice Souter
David Souter
David Hackett Souter is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He served from 1990 until his retirement on June 29, 2009. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush to fill the seat vacated by William J...
remarked that 'Bong Hits 4 JESUS' "sounds like just a kid's provocative statement to me". Starr responded by saying "the key is to allow the school official to interpret the message as long as that interpretation is reasonable".
Deputy Solicitor-General Edwin Kneedler
Edwin Kneedler
- Early life and education :Kneedler attended North Penn High School; he graduated in 1963. Kneedler earned a bachelor's degree in economics in 1967 from Lehigh University. He then earned a law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1974. From 1974 until 1975, he clerked for...
spoke on behalf of the U.S. government in support of the petitioner. He said: "The First Amendment does not require public school officials to stand aside and permit students who are entrusted to their supervision and care to promote or encourage the illegal use of drugs." He cited the cases of Board of Education v. Earls
Board of Education v. Earls
Board of Education v. Earls, , was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld the constitutionality of mandatory drug testing by public schools of students participating in extracurricular activities...
and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier in his favor.
Douglas K. Mertz, of Juneau, Alaska, for the respondent opened, "This is a case about free speech. It is not about drugs." Chief Justice
Chief Justice of the United States
The Chief Justice of the United States is the head of the United States federal court system and the chief judge of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Chief Justice is one of nine Supreme Court justices; the other eight are the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States...
John Roberts
John Roberts
John Glover Roberts, Jr. is the 17th and current Chief Justice of the United States. He has served since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist...
responded: "It's a case about money. Your client wants money from the principal personally for her actions in this case." Mertz emphasized that the torch relay was not school-sponsored; that he had not stepped on school property at all before unfurling the banner; that "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" was intended to be—and was regarded as—purely a humorous message; and that the unfurling of the banner did not cause any disruption. Based on these facts, he concludes, his case "does not present the issue of school authority over student expressions on campus or in a school-sponsored activity".
Starr rebutted. He cited Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, was a U.S. Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of random drug testing regimen implemented by the local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon. Under that regimen, student athletes were required to submit to random drug testing before being...
and Board of Education v. Earls as cases demonstrative of the Court's strong past stances on matter related to combating the 'scourge of drugs'. In closing and in summary he said:
Opinion of the court
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it. After reciting the background in Part I of the opinion, in Part II he determined that "school speechSchool speech (First Amendment)
The issue of school speech as it relates to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is one that has been of much debate and the subject of much litigation since the mid-20th century.-School speech vs. public speech:...
" doctrine should apply because Frederick's speech occurred "at a school event"; Part III determined that the speech was "reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use"; and Part IV, inquired whether a principal may legally restrict that speech, concluding that she could—under the three existing First Amendment school speech precedents, other Constitutional jurisprudence relating to schools, and a school's "important—indeed, perhaps compelling interest" in deterring drug use by students.
Speech falls under school speech jurisprudence
First, Roberts determined that the Court should analyze Frederick's speech under the comparatively strict doctrine of "school speechSchool speech (First Amendment)
The issue of school speech as it relates to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is one that has been of much debate and the subject of much litigation since the mid-20th century.-School speech vs. public speech:...
" -- rejecting "at the outset" Frederick's contention that the case should instead be considered under ordinary free-speech jurisprudence. While conceding that past precedent reflects "some uncertainty at the outer boundaries as to when courts should apply school-speech precedents", Roberts added: "but not on these facts." Roberts reiterated the circumstances, then explained: "Under these circumstances, we agree with the superintendent 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.'"
Principal reasonably interpreted speech
Next, Roberts determined that the principal’s conclusion that Frederick’s banner “advocated the use of illegal drugs” was reasonable. Acknowledging that the banner’s message was “cryptic”, nevertheless it was undeniably a “reference to illegal drugs”. In reaching this conclusion, Roberts contrasted “the paucity of alternative meanings the banner might bear” against the fact that the two immediately available interpretations of the words support this conclusion:And even if that second interpretation does not support the princial’s conclusions that the banner advocated the use of illegal drugs,
Wrapping up this discussion, Roberts rejected the two alternative accounts for Frederick’s speech provided in the dissent: first, the dissent noted that Frederick “just wanted to get on television,” which it characterized as a “credible and uncontradicted explanation for the message.” Roberts rejoined: “But that is a description of Frederick’s motive for displaying the banner; it is not an interpretation of what the banner says.” Second, the dissent emphasized the importance of political speech and the need to foster “national debate about a serious issue.” Roberts rejoined that “not even Frederick argues that the banner conveys any sort of political or religious message;” “this is plainly not a case about political debate over the criminalization of drug use or possession.”
First Amendment permits schools to restrict such speech
Finally, Roberts inquired whether a principal may restrict such speech. He concluded that she can.He began by reviewing the court’s school speech
School speech (First Amendment)
The issue of school speech as it relates to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is one that has been of much debate and the subject of much litigation since the mid-20th century.-School speech vs. public speech:...
jurisprudence:
- First, Roberts recapitulated that student expression may be suppressed only if school officials reasonably conclude that it will "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school” -- observing however that this doctrine came from a case (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.) in which the students were engaging in "political speech” in "a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance” (wearing armbands, to express “disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them.” Id., at 514), and in which "[t]he only interest the Court discerned underlying the school’s actions was the “mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,” or “an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression.” Roberts commented on this opinion with a quote from Virginia v. BlackVirginia v. BlackVirginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 , was a First Amendment case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. Three defendants were convicted in two separate cases of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. In this case, the Court struck down that statute to the extent that it...
-- that political speech is “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” 538 U. S. 343, 365 (2003).
- Second, Roberts cited Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser. The jurisprudence of Fraser is controversial, but Roberts declined to apply or resolve the disputed holding of that case ("We need not resolve this debate to decide this case”); instead, he explained that "[f]or present purposes, it is enough to distill from Fraser two basic principles”:
-
-
- that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings” (“in light of the special characteristics of the school environment”).
- that the “substantial disruption” analysis prescribed by Tinker "is not absolute” (i.e. it is flexible/optional).
-
- Third, Roberts cited the most recent student speech case, Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier. In that case, the Court permitted a school to "exercise editorial content over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities” (declining to publish articles in the school paper that "the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school”) ”so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Robert found that this case, though factually distinct, was "nevertheless instructive because it confirms both principles cited above.”
Roberts then cited cases that cited Tinker in the course of interpreting the qualified status that other Constitutional rights acquire in schools -- Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, New Jersey v. T. L. O.
New Jersey v. T. L. O.
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of a search of a public high school student for contraband after she was caught smoking. A subsequent search of her purse revealed drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and...
, Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls. In light of these concerns, Roberts devoted his lengthiest analysis to the government’s "important—indeed, perhaps compelling interest” in deterring drug use by students. To this point, the opinion cited statistics illustrating the problems of youth drug abuse. It further noted that part of a school’s educational mission is "to educate students about the dangers of illegal drugs and to discourage their use.” The District Court also noted "peer pressure is perhaps ‘the single most important factor leading school children to take drugs.’” The Court’s interpretation of Frederick’s banner deemed the banner as a type of peer pressure. Based on these concerns, the opinion concluded that the principal’s actions were motivated by a "serious and palpable” danger of drug abuse quite different from the amorphous fears of anti-war sentiment at play in Tinker.Morse v. Frederick, slip op. at 14.
In Tinker, the school principal had punished students for wearing black anti-war armbands based on his "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance” or "mere desire to avoid... discomfort and unpleasantness.” Here, however, the concern about student drug abuse "extends well beyond an abstract desire to avoid controversy.” Principal Morse’s failure to act against the banner "would send a powerful message to the students in her charge, including Frederick, about how serious the school was about the dangers of illegal drug use.” The First Amendment, concluded the opinion, "does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers.”
Concurrences
Justice Clarence ThomasClarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve on the Court....
wrote a concurrence that argued that students in public schools do not have a right to free speech and that Tinker should be overturned. Thomas wrote, "In my view, the history of public education suggests that the First Amendment, as originally understood, does not protect student speech in public schools." He praises Hugo Black
Hugo Black
Hugo Lafayette Black was an American politician and jurist. A member of the Democratic Party, Black represented Alabama in the United States Senate from 1927 to 1937, and served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1937 to 1971. Black was nominated to the Supreme...
's dissenting opinion on Tinker and called it "prophetic". Thomas cited the doctrine of in loco parentis, meaning "in place of the parent", in his opinion. He traced the history of public education in America back to its colonial roots. According to Thomas, because originally public schools were intended to substitute for private tutors, public schools could discipline students as they liked and had a far stronger hand in what happened in the classroom. "In short", he continues, "in the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed." He opined that because parents entrusted the care of their children to teachers, teachers have a right to act in the place of parents during school hours. Therefore, teachers should be able to discipline students if necessary. Thomas lambasted Tinker for "usurping [the local school district as a] traditional authority for the judiciary". Thomas believed that Frederick was neither speaking gibberish nor openly advocating drug use, but granting such an impertinence constitutional protection "would ... be to 'surrender control of the American public school system to public school students.'"
Justice Samuel Alito
Samuel Alito
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He was nominated by President George W. Bush and has served on the court since January 31, 2006....
, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy
Anthony Kennedy
Anthony McLeod Kennedy is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy has often been the swing vote on many of the Court's politically charged 5–4 decisions...
, wrote a concurrence indicating that he agreed with the majority opinion to the extent that:
Alito agreed that Morse did not violate Frederick's First Amendment rights and emphasized in his concurrence that the holding only applies to students who advocate illegal drug use. He opposed the "educational mission" and in loco parentis analysis in favor of a "special characteristic" of schools which he identifies to be ensuring the physical safety of the students. Alito concluded that an exception must be made to the First Amendment free speech guarantee to protect the students; since according to Alito, advocating illegal drugs possibly leads to violence. But Alito insisted that this small reduction of what is protected by the First Amendment is "at the far reaches of what the First Amendment permits".
Concurrence in part and dissent in part
Justice Stephen BreyerStephen Breyer
Stephen Gerald Breyer is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, and known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court....
concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, arguing that the Court should not have directly answered the First Amendment question in the case, but rather decided it based on qualified immunity
Qualified immunity
Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal law that arises in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 . Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the...
. Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense
Affirmative defense
A defendant offers an affirmative defense when responding to a plaintiff's claim in common law jurisdictions, or, more familiarly, in criminal law. Essentially, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. ...
that requires courts to enter judgment in favor of a government employee accused of violating individual rights unless the employee's conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Because it was not clear whether the school principal's actions in taking down the banner violated the First Amendment, Breyer would have simply issued a narrow decision indicating that she was shielded by qualified immunity and gone no further.
Dissent
Justice John Paul StevensJohn Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
, in a dissent joined by Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg, argued that "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." Stevens wrote:
Stevens criticized the majority decision as one that "trivializes the two cardinal principles upon which Tinker rests", because it "upholds a punishment meted out on the basis of a listener's disagreement with her understanding (or, more likely, misunderstanding) of the speaker's viewpoint."Stevens, J., dissenting, slip op. at 5. Moreover, he noted, "Encouraging drug use might well increase the likelihood that a listener will try an illegal drug, but that hardly justifies censorship." "[C]arving out pro-drug speech for uniquely harsh treatment," wrote Stevens, "finds no support in our case law and is inimical to the values protected by the First Amendment."
Stevens also took issue with the majority's interpretation of the banner as being a serious incitement to drug use:
Stevens argued that it would be "profoundly unwise to create special rules for speech about drug and alcohol use", pointing to the historical examples of both opposition to the Vietnam War
Vietnam War
The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955 to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. This war followed the First Indochina War and was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of...
and resistance to Prohibition
Prohibition
Prohibition of alcohol, often referred to simply as prohibition, is the practice of prohibiting the manufacture, transportation, import, export, sale, and consumption of alcohol and alcoholic beverages. The term can also apply to the periods in the histories of the countries during which the...
in the 1920s. Pointing to the current debate over medical marijuana
Medical cannabis
Medical cannabis refers to the use of parts of the herb cannabis as a physician-recommended form of medicine or herbal therapy, or to synthetic forms of specific cannabinoids such as THC as a physician-recommended form of medicine...
, Stevens concluded, "Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting—however inarticulately—that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely."
Melinda Cupps Dickler
Melinda Cupps Dickler, in her article "The Morse Quartet: Student Speech And The First Amendment", provided a survey of commentary that followed in the immediate aftermath of the case: Some commentators have suggested that Morse both demonstrated a division amongst the Justices on student speech rights and continued Fraser's and Kuhlmeier's erosion of students' First Amendment rights. She regards this suggestion as "not surprising" given the outcome of the decision, the plain language of the holding, and the dissenting Justices' charge that the opinion did "serious violence to the First Amendment." She adds that other commentators have asserted that while Morse did not dramatically change the law regarding student speech, it failed to answer any of the questions left by the Tinker trilogy. She notes that these questions - what First Amendment protection is owed to student speech, and how courts should analyze its censorship - are currently significant as schools struggle with the issues of discriminatory student speech or hate speech, and student speech threatening violence. Further, "such questions are always paramount because schools are the training grounds for our nation's citizens and future leaders.".Kenneth Starr
Kenneth StarrKenneth Starr
Kenneth Winston "Ken" Starr is an American lawyer and educational administrator who has also been a federal judge. He is best known for his investigation of figures during the Clinton administration....
, former Dean at Pepperdine University School of Law, and who argued for Morse before the Supreme Court, introduced a symposium about the case noting that Chief Justice Roberts "sought to keep the decision quite narrow," limiting the case "to the issue of public school administrators' ability to keep the educational process free from messages about illegal drugs" and drawing from the Court's existing student speech jurisprudence that "permitted school administrators broad discretion to keep out of the educational environment antisocial messages celebrating drug use."
Erwin Chemerinsky
Leading constitutional law scholar Erwin ChemerinskyErwin Chemerinsky
Erwin Chemerinsky is an American lawyer and law professor. He is a prominent scholar in United States constitutional law and federal civil procedure...
participated in the same symposium, exploring how this decision would be understood and applied by school officials, school boards, and lower court judges. He suggested that the opinion was misguided and - from a First Amendment perspective - highly undesirable, arguing that the decision cannot be justified under existing First Amendment principles, that it could be seen as authorizing punishment of students for speech that is deemed distasteful or offensive, even just juvenile. However, he noted Justice Alito's concurring opinion, which suggests that the majority opinion might be exceedingly narrow and based on a very unusual factual context; Chemerinsky noted that if Justice Alito's opinion is seen as defining the scope of the holding, then the case establishes only the power of schools to punish speech encouraging illegal drug use rather than giving school officials great discretion to punish student speech. Thus, despite the fact that Morse v. Frederick is consistent with decisions from the Supreme Court and lower federal courts over the last two decades, his hope is that Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion will be read through the prism of Justice Alito's concurring opinion, thereby having little effect on the already very limited First Amendment rights of students.
Subsequent judicial interpretation
Melinda Cupps Dickler noted that "The few courts that have discussed Morse have disagreed about the breadth of its holding."Melinda Cupps Dickler (Visiting Assistant Professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology), Article: The Morse Quartet: Student Speech And The First Amendment. 53 Loy. L. Rev. 355, supporting this claim with the following citations:-
- Compare Lowery v. Euverard, 497 F.3d 584, 602 (6th Cir. 2007) (Gilman, J., concurring) (noting that Morse's holding is narrow), and Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., 496 F. Supp. 2d 587, 596-97 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (iterating that Morse did not alter the Tinker framework), with Boim v. Fulton County Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d 978, 9984 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that Morse's holding is broad). The Layshock court stated that Morse did not change the basic framework established by the Tinker trilogy, which it described as a scheme in which Fraser and Kuhlmeier are exceptions to Tinker's general rule. Layshock, 496 F. Supp. 2d at 596. Significantly, however, the court cited to both Morse and Tinker as requiring courts to defer to school officials' decisions about punishing student speech. Id. at 597. On the other hand, the court also accepted Justice Alito's concurring argument in Morse when it held that Morse does not permit school officials to regulate student speech merely on the basis that it is incompatible with the schools' educational missions. Id. at 599.
-
- By contrast, the Eleventh Circuit extended Morse's rationale about illegal drugs to the context of student speech that is "construed as a threat of school violence." Boim, 494 F.3d at 984 (upholding the suspension of a high school student for a story labeled as a "dream" in which she described shooting her math teacher). Moreover, the court concluded that Morse supports the idea that student speech can be regulated where "[in] a school administrator's professional observation ... certain expressions [of student speech] have led to, and therefore could lead to, an unhealthy and potentially unsafe learning environment." Id. at 983 (quoting Scott v. Sch. Bd., 324 F.3d 1246, 1247 (11th Cir. 2003)). Some commentators predict that courts will extend Morse to further restrict protection for student speech. See, e.g., Hilden, supra note 12 (discussing Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ. of Weedsport Cent. Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2007)); see also infra text accompanying note 17 (providing further discussion of Wisniewski, in which the Second Circuit cited to Morse, but applied Tinker).
Groups involved
The American Civil Liberties UnionAmerican Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union is a U.S. non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." It works through litigation, legislation, and...
directly participated in this case on the side of Joseph Frederick. The Center for Individual Rights
Center for Individual Rights
The Center for Individual Rights is a non-profit public interest law firm in the United States. Based in Washington, D.C., the firm is "dedicated to the defense of individual liberties against the increasingly aggressive and unchecked authority of federal and state governments." The Center is...
, National Coalition Against Censorship
National Coalition Against Censorship
The National Coalition Against Censorship , founded in 1974, is an alliance of 50 national non-profit organizations, including literary, artistic, religious, educational, professional, labor, and civil liberties groups...
, and other groups that advocate First Amendment protection filed amici curiae
Amicus curiae
An amicus curiae is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it...
in support of Frederick. Students for Sensible Drug Policy
Students for Sensible Drug Policy
Students for Sensible Drug Policy is an international non-profit advocacy and education organization based in Washington D.C., with offices in both Washington D.C. and San Francisco, CA...
also noted that banning drug-related speech would undermine their ability to have chapters in public schools. The American Center for Law and Justice
American Center for Law and Justice
The American Center for Law & Justice is a conservative Christian, pro-life group that was founded in 1990 by evangelical Pat Robertson.-History:...
, and Rutherford Institute
Rutherford Institute
The Rutherford Institute is a non-profit group based in Charlottesville, Virginia dedicated to the defense of civil liberties, human rights, and religious liberty. It was founded in 1982 by John W. Whitehead...
, and several other Christian right
Christian right
Christian right is a term used predominantly in the United States to describe "right-wing" Christian political groups that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies...
groups also filed briefs on the side of Frederick, reasoning that if schools could ban "offensive" speech they would also be able to prohibit religious speech with which administrators disagree. On this point, the Christian right groups prevailed, as the Supreme Court explicitly declined to hold that school boards could discipline "offensive" speech, noting that "much political and religious speech might be perceived as offensive to some" and the concern is "not that Frederick's speech was offensive, but that it was reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use."
The National School Boards Association
National School Boards Association
The National School Boards Association, or NSBA, is a nonprofit organization operating as a federation of state associations of school boards across the United States. Founded in 1940, NSBA represents 95,000 local school board members who govern 14,890 local school districts serving more than 47...
supports Morse and the Juneau school district, arguing that schools should be able to regulate controversial speech. U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement
Paul Clement
Paul Drew Clement is a former United States Solicitor General and current Georgetown University legal professor. He is also an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law. He was nominated by President George W...
filed an amicus brief in support of the school district's decision to prohibit controversial speech.
On March 19, 2007, Students for Sensible Drug Policy organized a widely-publicized free speech rally at the Supreme Court during oral arguments. The Drug Policy Alliance
Drug Policy Alliance
The Drug Policy Alliance is a New York City-based non-profit organization, led by executive director Ethan Nadelmann, with the principal goal of ending the American "War on Drugs"...
and the National Youth Rights Association
National Youth Rights Association
The National Youth Rights Association is the largest youth-led civil rights organization in the United States promoting youth rights, with approximately ten thousand members...
assisted with the rally, which brought dozens of students from across the country to the court steps.
Aftermath
The Supreme Court decision did not resolve all of the issues in the case. Frederick claimed his speech rights under the Constitution of Alaska were violated, and the issue was argued in front of the Court of Appeals in September 2008. However, the school district agreed to settle out of court before the judges reached a decision. In November 2008, the district paid Frederick $45,000 to settle all remaining claims and agreed to hire a neutral constitutional law expert to lead a forum on student speech at Juneau-Douglas High School by the end of the school year.See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 551
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Legal history of cannabis in the United States
- Cannabis in the United StatesCannabis in the United StatesThe use, sale and possession of cannabis in the United States is illegal under federal law. However, some states have created exemptions for medical cannabis use....
External links
- [ Official Supreme Court slip opinion]
- Bong Hits 4 Jesus Toke Two - Washington Post OpinionOpinionIn general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented...
, Emil Steiner - [ Supreme Court Oral Argument Transcript]
- Video of March 19 free speech demonstration at the U.S. Supreme Court
- Analysis of the Supreme Court ruling by Andy CarvinAndy CarvinAndy Carvin is National Public Radio's senior product manager for online communities. Carvin was the founding editor and former coordinator of the Digital Divide Network, an online community of more than 10,000 Internet activists in over 140 countries working to bridge the digital divide...
- Opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Yale Law Journal commentary
- MSNBC article on the incident
- Washington wire article
- Law.com case overview
- Law.com cert. candidate
- Bong Hits 4 Jesus Toke Three - Washington Post OpinionOpinionIn general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented...
, Emil Steiner - Student Press Law Center on the Appeals Court decision
- San Francisco Gate on the appeal
- List of briefs filed in the case, including several amicus briefs
- Analysis of the semantics of Bong hits 4 Jesus
- Video of Bong Hits 4 Jesus song about the case