Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)
Primary Holding
Schools may take steps to safeguard students from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, and therefore, school officials did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating a pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it.
In Morse v. Frederick, a high school student displayed a banner promoting illegal drug use during a school event, and the principal took it down and suspended him. The Supreme Court ruled that schools can limit student speech if it encourages illegal activities, like drug use. This case matters because it shows that while students have free speech rights, those rights can be restricted in school to protect students and maintain a safe environment. If you're a student or parent, this case is relevant when considering what kind of messages are acceptable in school settings.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
Joseph Frederick, a public school student, was suspended after he held up a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a televised school event, referring to marijuana smoking. Morse, the school principal, argued that suspending Frederick and taking away his banner was justified based on a school policy that forbade displaying material that promotes the use of illegal drugs. Frederick appealed his suspension on First Amendment grounds but was unsuccessful in the lower court, which ruled that Morse had qualified immunity whether or not there was a constitutional violation. The Ninth Circuit reversed on the basis that Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) makes all student speech protected under the First Amendment unless it would result in a disruption of school discipline.
Whether school officials may restrict student speech at a school-sanctioned event when that speech can reasonably be regarded as promoting illegal drug use.
The judgment is reversed.
First Amendment rights in the setting of schools are not always easy to understand. The Court sometimes gives students the full scope of First Amendment protection, but other decisions permit school administrators a broader range of authority in their role of assisting with the development of children and maintaining discipline. Students who are children also sometimes have more restricted rights than students who are adults.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- March 19, 2007
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Roberts
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008)
Consumer LostA police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by making an arrest based on probable cause, even if the arrest is prohibited by state law.
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
Consumer WonThe Federal Government may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unless it demonstrates that the application of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy, 551 U.S. 291 (2007)
Consumer LostThe enforcement of a rule prohibiting high school coaches from recruiting middle school athletes constitutes state action and can violate the First Amendment if it is deemed a content-based regulation of speech that is not narrowly tailored to serve its permissible purposes.
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008)
Consumer LostThe statute criminalizing the pandering or solicitation of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(3)(B) is not overbroad under the First Amendment and is not impermissibly vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.