MORSE V.

FREDERICK
Sarah Courneya, Shauntel Manning, and Marty Shafer
 In Morse v. Frederick (2007), the Supreme Court

“
found that the First Amendment does not

prevent a school district from suppressing

student speech encouraging illegal drug use.

 ❏ January 24, 2002, Joseph Frederick, a high
FACTS OF school student at Juneau-Douglas High School
THE CASE (JDHS), brought a banner that said “BONG HiTS
4 JESUS” to a televised rally at his school

❏ Frederick and his friends were standing ACROSS

the street from JDHS

❏ The large banner was easily readable by the

students on the other side of the street
4
FACTS OF THE ❏ Principal Morse told students to take the
CASE CONT. banner down. All students, except Joseph
Frederick adhered to the direction

❏ Principal Morse took the banner &

suspended Frederick for 10 school days

❏ First Amendment does not prevent a school

district from suppressing student speech
encouraging illegal drug use

5
 ❏ Frederick appealed his suspension but the
Superintendent upheld the suspension, arguing the
principal’s actions were allowed

PROCEDURAL
❏ Frederick filed suit that the school board and Morse
violated his First Amendment rights
HISTORY
❏ District Court found in favor of the school board and
Morse, saying that Principal Morse had the authority
and obligation to stop these messages at a school-
sanctioned activity

❏ United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

reversed the decision
6 ❏ Supreme Court agreed to hear the case
 ❏ Two legal questions at stake:

Main Legal Issue 1. Did Joseph Frederick have a First

Amendment right to display his banner
at the event?

2. Could the principal be held accountable

for damages caused? (not granted
immunity)

❏ The Supreme Court answered the

first and did not go on to resolve
7 the second.
 ❏ Supreme Court rejected
Description of the claim that this was not
school speech
the Court’s
❏ The Supreme Court ruled
Holding that Principal Morse
exercised reasonable
judgment

❏ First Amendment does not

protect speech promoting
8 illegal drug use at school-
sanctioned events
 Explanation of Court’s
Rationale
❏ The wording on banner was an undeniable reference to
illegal drug use

❏ Frederick’s motive for hanging the banner was to be on

TV

❏ Tinker v Des Moines was considered due to lack of

disruption caused

❏ Bethel School District v Fraser - public schools can

9 prohibit offensive language; thus, Tinker is not absolute
 Explanation of Court’s
Rationale
❏ Kuhlmeier v Hazelwood School District - schools can regulate some speech
even when the government couldn’t outside of the school

❏ Fourth & Fourteenth Amendment

❏ Supreme Court used Vernonia v Action- deterring drug use among school
children is an “important--indeed, perhaps compelling” interest

❏ Due to this being a school event, administrator has to protect the children
involved; not confiscating the banner would cause harm to other children
10
 Importance/Relevance for
School Districts Today
❏ Frederick v. Morse provides explicit guidelines for school districts on
restricting speech related to illegal drug usage

❏ Some courts have stuck to the narrow interpretive decision of this case,
applying its language and guidelines to cases related to speech and illegal
drug use

❏ Other courts have interpreted this case more broadly, making a wider
interpretation of school districts’ abilities to suppress student speech

❏ Ultimately, this Supreme Court decision supported the principal/district’s

11 judgment in removing the banner
 THANK YOU!
Any questions?

12