Student Free Speech Decision: Yields a Confusing Test

Yesterday, the Court handed down its opinion in one of two blockbuster cases remaining to be decided: Morse v. Frederick. The case decides whether an Alaska school can limit student free speech regarding illegal drugs. The student, Joseph Frederick ,was suspended after displaying a sign reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and he subsequently sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights.

The decision seems to chip away at a clear and applicable test for restricting First Amendment protections of freedom of speech. Precedent has usually cited safety as a primary concern for restricting freedom of speech and the Court's decision in Morse expands the definition of safety slightly too much.

CJ Roberts writes the opinion for a highly fractured majority: Scalia joins with Roberts, Alito and Kennedy write concurring opinions, and Breyer joins in the outcome of the case, but for a different reason than the other four justices. A common thread among all five justices, however, is that the school should win. Save Justice Breyer, the Court found that the student banner which was displayed at a parade reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" was speech that "materially and substantially disrupted the work and discipline of the school." How? By encouraging illegal drug use which has become an enormous problem among adolescents. Therefore restricting this speech will lower peer pressure to use illegal drugs such as the one in this case, marijuana.

The connection between the banner and increased drug usage is tenuous at best. The Court provides no evidence showing that the school experienced or would experienced increased numbers of students using drugs after being exposed to the sign. Moreover, the strongest stimulus of peer pressure, which would cause students to use illegal drugs, is not removed by the sign and subsequent speech being banned by the school. The ban shows disapproval, but would adolescent teens ever really listen to an adult's simple disapproval?

Stevens in his dissent gets it right. He writes:

The Court’s test invites stark viewpoint discrimination. In this case, for example, the principal has unabashedly acknowledged that she disciplined Frederick because she disagreed with the pro-drug viewpoint she ascribed to the message on the banner, see App. 25—a viewpoint, incidentally, that Frederick has disavowed, see id., at 28. Unlike our recent decision in Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy, 551 U. S. (2007) (slip op., at 3), see also ante, at 3 (ALITO, J., concurring), the Court’s holding in this case strikes at "the heart of the First Amendment" because it upholds a punishment meted out on the basis of a listener’s disagreement with her understanding (or, more likely, misunderstanding) of the speaker’s viewpoint. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989).

In addition, he cites Tinker again, placing emphasis upon the fact that "Tinker requires a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance." CJ Roberts draws too many lines and has to make too many assumptions in showing the connection between Frederick's sign and an increase in student drug use. There is no "significant fear of disruption." At least none in the opinion was shown or advocated by the school itself.

One other danger of "viewpoint discrimination," as Justice Stevens calls it, would be that moral judgments either on the morality of gay marriage, stem cell research, or abortion would become at least conceivably regulated under the school's policy of anything that "materially or substantially would disrupt the work or discipline of the school." Resolving teenage pregnancy through abortion may very well be an increasing problem for America, but does the school have a right to limit speech which may advocate for a pro-choice position? The test the Court lays out in Morse would appear to affirm a school's decision to limit that kind of speech.

Justice Breyer also points out an interesting situation:

If, for example, Frederick’s banner had read"LEGALIZE BONG HiTS," he might be thought to receive protection from the majority’s rule, which goes to speech "encouraging illegal drug use." Ante, at 2 (emphasis added). But speech advocating change in drug laws might also be perceived of as promoting the disregard of existing drug laws.

Legal principles must treat like instances alike. Those principles do not permit treating "drug use" separately without a satisfying explanation of why drug use is sui generis. To say that illegal drug use is harmful to students, while surely true, does not itself constitute a satisfying explanation because there are many such harms. During a real war, one less metaphorical than the war on drugs, the Court declined an opportunity to draw narrow subject-matter-based lines. Cf. West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943) (holding students cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance during World War II).

Indeed, the Court does not consider the chilling effects that their decision creates on possibly educative speech which will broaden student's horizons and force them to make educated and informed choices (whether on the use of illegal drugs or support for an unpopular war)--something which would substantially aid the work and discipline of the school, rather than disrupt.

The Court authors a problematic decision in Morse. It will likely see this case revisited once more so that they can fashion a more coherent approach to free speech in schools.

More on the Seattle Decision

An editorial today from the NY Times by Adam Cohen appears to agree with On the Docket's prediction about the USSC striking down the integrationist-tie breaker.

Yet, the editorial appears to contribute the decision mostly to the changing ideology of the Court rather than constitutional jurisprudence and precedent. Cohen rather harshly blames Justice Thomas for the predicted outcome of the Seattle decision.

It is hard to say, whether or not Cohen is right, but the evidence from the oral argument transcripts appear to point in the other direction. Liberals on the Court such as Justice Breyer and Justice Souter appear to be the ones whom Cohen should blame. Both Souter and Breyer upheld the affirmative action program seen in the University of Michigan Law School case in 2003, but it appears that they have a different take on the integration plan by Seattle. They do so not because they are not liberal, but rather because the motivations and rationale behind the Seattle integration plan are different. Applicants are chosen solely on the basis of race, rather than an individualized selection process which also takes into account academic merit of the applicants. Take a look at what was said during oral arguments:

JUSTICE SOUTER: Let me help you out by taking you back to my question. One of the characteristics of the affirmative action cases was the displacement of some other otherwise generally acknowledged relevant criterion such as ability as shown in test scores, grade point averages, things like that; and that was a characteristic of those cases.

It is not a characteristic of this case, as I understand it.

***

JUSTICE BREYER: But I think that the point that Justice Souter is trying to make, as I understand it, is of course there are similarities to Gratz, they can choose, but there's a big difference. The similarity in Grutter, or the difference in Grutter and Gratz is that you had to prod a school that was supposed to be better than others, that the members of that school, the faculty and the administration tried to make it
better than others. It was an elite merit selection academy. And if you put the black person in, the white person can't get the benefit of that.

Here we have no merit selection system. Merit is not an issue. The object of the people who run this place is not to create a school better than others, it is to equalize the schools. That's in principle and in practice, if you look at the numbers, you see that the six schools that were at the top, their position would shift radically from year to year, preferences was about equal among them. They have the same curriculum, they have similar faculties, and I don't think anyone can say either in theory or in practice, that one of these schools happened to be like that prize of University of Michigan, a merit selection system. That, I think, was a major difference that he was getting at, why is this not the same kind of thing? That was at issue in Grutter and Gratz. Now what is your response to that?

Cohen makes a weighty claim against Justice Thomas. Thomas, himself, as Cohen points out does, not say very much during the oral arguments, so it is hard to tell what is going on his his mind about the intergrationist tie breaker at this point. Given previous rulings, though, he will most likely vote against it. Yet, it appears that the Seattle decision will have more than just Thomas advocating against it.