Morse v Frederick Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Legal Case Briefing...

Description

Cameron Koch

V220 – Case Brief

October 1, 2013

1. Case name, court, year Morse v. Frederick, Supreme Court of the United States (2007) 2. Issue(s) Does the First Amendment allow public schools to forbid students from expressing messages that promote illegal drug usage during school-supervised events? 3. Holding Yes (6/3) 4. Facts Substantive: During the Olympic Torch Relay through Juneau, Alaska on January 24, 2002, Joseph Frederick, who was a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, raised a banner that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. Joseph was at the event through a school-supervised activity. The high school’s principal, Deborah Morse, told Frederick to remove the banner but Frederick refused to do so and was suspended from school for 10 days for violating the school policy that prohibits the encouragement of using illegal drugs. Procedural: U.S. District Court: Ruled in favor of Morse stating that Frederick’s action was not protected by the First Amendment U.S. Court of Appeals: Reversed (Frederick not guilty) U.S. Supreme Court: Reversed again in favor of Morse (Frederick guilty) 5. Rule and Reasoning The majority ruled that the Constitution has lesser jurisdiction when dealing with certain types of student speech at school events. The phrase “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” was deemed inappropriate is it could easily be interpreted as promoting the use of illegal drugs. The Supreme Court decided that the state and school are responsible for acting upon students that promote the use of illegal drugs and have the authority to punish those that do. Bethel v. Fraser (1986) is a binding precedent because the Court ruled that while students are in school, they don’t have the rights that they would have if they were adults. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) was a case that dealt with political speech so therefore is was not followed. Being a political speech, it was protected by the First Amendment and could only be prohibited if it disrupted the educational process. Kuhlmeier v. Hazelwood (1986) is a binding precedent because the Court ruled that schools don’t offend the First Amendment by controlling material that is voiced in school sponsored activities that deal with student expression.

6. Concurrences and Dissents Concurrences: 1

Cameron Koch

V220 – Case Brief

October 1, 2013

Justice Thomas agreed with the majority but stated that Tinker should be overturned. He argued that the First Amendment’s intention was not to defend the speech of students in public schools. Justice Alito and Kennedy also agreed with the majority but stated that the ruling was not intended to promote the use of illegal drugs but was in favor of protecting the speech of constitutionally acceptable political ideas. Dissents: Justice Stevens dissented the decision and argued that banning speech that refers to the use of illegal drugs violates the First Amendment because it is discriminating strictly on content. He also argued that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” was to vague of a phrase to be deemed as promoting illegal drug use and he also argued that speech should not be justified on how a 3rd party perceives it. 7. Opinion a. Yes, I agree with the decision of the court. I agree because the court is ruling in favor to protect students from the pressures and scenes of condoning illegal activities that very well may lead them in to trouble with the law or worse, harm. b. I think this case is part of the class because it shows the true extent of the boundaries of the First Amendment. The First Amendment, which protects our free will to express how we feel about the world, is one of, if not the most important, foundation of America. But it shows that even the most liberating amendment of the constitution is still limited. c. One point that I had not considered was the qualified immunity trait. I did not know that school principals were considered government officials and were protected. The case would have been drastically changed if the charge had been deemed unconstitutional.

8. Public Policies Frederick’s interests are within the First Amendment where an individual is free to express one’s self without prosecution of the law, even if the speech is related to illegal actions or substances. Morse’s interests are within the school policy that states that no student is permitted to condone the use of illegal drugs or promote the action in any way.

2...