COURT HEARS 'BONG HITS 4 JESUS' CASE

Matter May Clarify Line Between Protected Speech, Scope of School Power

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared split Monday over the line
between individual freedom and institutional order in public schools,
in a high-profile case that pits the First Amendment against school
efforts to discourage drug use.

In 2002, Joseph Frederick, a high school senior in Juneau, Alaska,
greeted the Olympic torch during a school-sponsored event with a
banner that blared: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

His principal said the sign promoted drug use and suspended Frederick
for 10 days. Frederick said the message was politically protected
speech and sued the principal for trampling his constitutional rights.

The case, argued Monday at the Supreme Court, could bring new clarity
to the boundaries between student expression and the scope of school
officials' power.

Former federal judge and independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who
represents the principal, told the justices that the case was a simple
matter of a student defying longstanding school anti-drug policies.

"Drugs and the glorification of drugs are profound problems in this
society," Starr said to open his argument. "This case is ultimately
about drugs."

The justices immediately pushed back.

Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Starr which constitutional rule
prevented Frederick from displaying his banner.

Starr cited a 1969 high court ruling that said students' free speech
rights could be curtailed when their speech or expression is disruptive.

But Kennedy quickly responded: "There was no classroom
here."

Starr said the court's rules say school officials can suppress any
message that contradicts their educational mission, and that would
include pro-drug messages.

Justice David Souter asked whether the school could have taken the
same action if the banner had a message promoting a change in drug
laws to legalize marijuana.

"It's political speech, to me," Souter said. "I don't see what it
disrupts."

Starr, in a revealing moment, said the school could still suppress the
message because it was at odds with the district's drug policy.

It was a candid admission of how bold his assertions in the case are.
Indeed, most First Amendment law precludes the government from
singling out particular messages for disfavor simply because they are
unpopular or at odds with government policy.

Starr, backed by the federal government, is arguing to give school
officials near-carte blanche to squelch messages that conflict with
their educational mission.

Assistant solicitor general Edwin Kneedler had no more success making
that point to the justices than Starr seemed to. He stressed that
schools need to have the authority to enforce their educational
policies and pursue their missions.

"I find that a very, very disturbing argument," Justice Samuel Alito
told Kneedler.

Echoing a point made earlier in the argument by Chief Justice John
Roberts, Alito said schools define their missions broadly, to include
things that are not really academic in nature.

A decision is expected by June.