# data[].attributes.body
John G. Roberts Jr.
&

John Paul Stevens Antonin Scalia Anthony M. Kennedy David H. Souter Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsberg Stephen G. Breyer Samuel A. Alito Jr.

# data[].attributes.body
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 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.

Because Frederick was punished for his message rather than for any disturbance, the Circuit Court ruled, the punishment was unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit : 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.

# data[].attributes.body
The  petitioner’s justification for bringing the case to the Supreme Court was the school's policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs.
The respondent’s counter argument against the petitioner was he suffered a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events?
- 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]."

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?
- 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 [...]."

# data[].attributes.body
Consistent with these principles, we hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use. We conclude that the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the Court that the principal should not be held liable for pulling down Frederick’s banner. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982). I would hold, however, that the school’s interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech “reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use,” ante, at 1, cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First Amendment demands more, indeed, much more. [STEVENS]

I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that (a) it goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as “the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.” See post, at 13 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

# data[].attributes.body
In my view, the history of public education suggests that the First Amendment, as originally understood, does not protect student speech in public schools. Although colonial schools were exclusively private, public education proliferated in the early 1800’s. By the time the States ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, public schools had become relatively common. W. Reese, America’s Public Schools: From the Common School to “No Child Left Behind” 11–12 (2005) (hereinafter Reese). If students in public schools were originally understood as having free-speech rights, one would have expected 19th-century public schools to have respected those rights and courts to have enforced them.[Footnote 1] They did not. [Thomas]

# data[].attributes.body
This case goes both ways as it shows the limitations students have once that enter the school system, while also showing the extent schools go in order to keep a safe learning environmet.

# data[].attributes.body
Although Justice Thomas wished to see the former case of Tinker overturned, the Morse v. Frederick case did not do so as the school did not violate Frederick's first amendment rights. This fits it in the Judicial Restraint category because no case was brought about due to this Supreme Court Case.