Morse v. Frederick, (551 U.S. 393 (2007)), is a United States Supreme Court case where the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use at or across the street from a school-supervised event.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
Morse v. Frederick, (551 U.S. 393 (2007)), is a United States Supreme Court case where the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use at or across the street from a school-supervised event.
- Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg
- Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Jun 25, 2007 · In Morse v. Frederick, the majority acknowledged that the Constitution affords lesser protections to certain types of student speech at school or at school-supervised events. It found that Frederick message was, by his own admission, not political, as was the case in Tinker.
At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner with the message \\"Bong Hits 4 Jesus,\\" a slang reference to marijuana smoking. Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days. She justified her actions by citing the school's policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs. Frederick sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the federal civil rights statute, alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The District Court found no constitutional violation and ruled in favor of Morse. The court held that even if there were a violation, the principal had qualified immunity from lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Ninth Circuit cited Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , which extended First Amendment protection to student speech except where the speech would cause a disturbance. Because Frederick was punished for his message rather than for any disturbance, the Circuit Court ruled, the punishment was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the principal had no qualified immunity, because any reasonable principal would have known that Morse's actions were unlawful.
1) Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events? 2) Does a school official have qualified immunity from a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 when, in accordance with school policy, she disciplines a student for displaying a banner with a drug reference at a school-supervised event?
Yes and not reached. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit by a 5-4 vote, ruling that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use. Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion held that although students do have some right to political speech even while in school, this right does not extend to pro-drug messages that may undermine the school's important mission to discourage drug use. The majority held that Frederick's message, though \\"cryptic,\\" was reasonably interpreted as promoting marijuana use - equivalent to \\"[Take] bong hits\\" or \\"bong hits [are a good thing].\\" In ruling for Morse, the Court affirmed that the speech rights of public school students are not as extensive as those adults normally enjoy, and that the highly protective standard set by Tinker would not always be applied. In concurring opinions, Justice Thomas expressed his view that the right to free speech does not apply to students and his wish to see Tinker overturned altogether, while Justice Alito stressed that the decision applied only to pro-drug messages and not to broader political speech. The dissent conceded that the principal should have had immunity from the lawsuit, but argued that the majority opinion was \\"[...] deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high-school students [...].\\"
Morse v. Frederick, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2007, ruled (5–4) that Alaskan school officials had not violated a student’s First Amendment freedom of speech rights after suspending him for displaying, at a school event, a banner that was seen as promoting illegal drug use.
People also ask
What is the summary of Morse v Frederick?
What were the implications in the Frederick V Morse case?
Why was the Frederick V Morse case important to society?
What rights did Frederick Morse violate?
Frederick filed suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that the school board and Morse had violated his First Amendment rights. The District Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had not infringed Frederick’s speech rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed.
Mar 19, 2007 · United States Supreme Court. MORSE ET AL. v.FREDERICK(2007) No. 06-278 Argued: March 19, 2007 Decided: June 25, 2007. At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS," which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use.
Mar 10, 2006 · Frederick says that the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” language was designed to be meaningless and funny, in order to get on television, but Principal Morse says that “bong hits” means puffs of marijuana and the words promote marijuana use.
Mar 29, 2017 · Morse v. Frederick Case Brief. Statement of the facts: Principal Morse suspended Frederick, a high school senior, for displaying a banner which read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” Frederick was suspended for 10 days because Morse believed the sign was promoting the use of illegal drugs, in violation of school policy.
Brief Fact Summary. Joseph Frederick (P) , a public school student, was suspended by the principal Deborah Morse (D) for displaying a banner on which was written “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”, bong being slang for marijuana, at a school event which was covered by television.