JUSTICES LET SCHOOLS BAN PRO-DRUG SIGNS

High Court Rules, 5-4, That Administrators Have The Right To
Discipline Students For Promoting Illegal Activities.

WASHINGTON -- School principals may punish students for displaying
signs that favor the use of illegal drugs, the Supreme Court said
Monday in a narrow decision limiting the free-speech rights of students.

The 5-4 ruling rejected a free-speech claim from a former high school
student in Juneau, Alaska, who was suspended for unfurling a banner
outside school that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The student, Joseph
Frederick, hoped to show up on the local television news because the
Olympic torch parade was due to pass by. Instead, he ended up in the
principal's office and received a 10-day suspension.

He sued the principal, Deborah Morse, contending she had violated his
rights under the 1st Amendment, and he won before a federal appeals
court in San Francisco.

The justices sided with the principal Monday in throwing out the
student's lawsuit, but they stressed they would have come to a
different conclusion if the banner had carried a political or social
message. For example, if the banner had read "Down with Bush" or
"Praise Allah," the court might have concluded it was protected as free speech.

Bush administration lawyers had urged the court to permit public
school officials to censor any student speech that interferes with
the school's educational mission. But two justices in the majority --
Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy -- said they would not go
along with such a ruling. Alito said school authorities should not
have "a license to suppress speech on political or social issues
based on disagreement with the viewpoint expressed."

This strong support for free-speech appeals to conservatives and liberals.

Some conservative groups have gone to court to defend Christian
students who have worn T-shirts objecting to homosexuality or
proclaiming their faith in Jesus.

But the Alaska case decided Monday turned on whether principals can
forbid signs, banners or T-shirts that appear to support illegal drug
use. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put together a five-member
majority to uphold the principal's decision in this case.

"School principals have a difficult job, and a vitally important
one," Roberts said. "When Frederick suddenly and unexpectedly
unfurled his banner, Morse had to decide to act, or not act, on the
spot. It was reasonable for her to conclude the banner promoted
illegal drug use -- in violation of established school policy -- and
that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in
her charge.

"The 1st Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school
events student expression that contributes to those dangers."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, along with Kennedy and
Alito, agreed with Roberts in Morse vs. Frederick.

While Alito and Kennedy said they supported broad free-speech rights
for students, Thomas said he would have gone further in the other
direction and said high school students do not have free-speech rights.

The court's main ruling in this area of free-speech law goes back to
the Vietnam War era. In 1969, it sided with students who had worn
black armbands to high school to protest the war. The court said then
in Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District that
students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of
speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Roberts cited that phrase with approval Monday, and only Thomas,
speaking for himself, said he would overrule the Tinker decision.

Since 1969, high school students have not won a free-speech case in
the Supreme Court. In 1986, for example, the court said a student
could be disciplined for giving a speech that included several mild
sexual allusions. Two years later, the court said a teacher could
remove articles from a school newspaper because they mentioned the
names of girls who were pregnant.

However, the court has maintained the view that speech by students,
including signs or T-shirts, should be permitted, so long as it is
not "disruptive." The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals relied on
that formulation when it ruled in favor of Frederick and his "bong
hits" banner.

But the Supreme Court said advocating illegal drugs at school could
not be treated as protected speech.

Justice John Paul Stevens spoke for the dissenters Monday and
questioned whether the "bong hits" sign had much to do with illegal drug use.

He called it a "nonsense banner" and said "the court does serious
violence to the 1st Amendment in upholding -- indeed, lauding -- a
school's decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with
which it disagreed."