Students are rallying outside the U.S. Supreme Court today as the court hears oral arguments in a case where DPA has been working to protect the freedom of speech in public high schools--including speech critical of current government policies.

DPA is supporting, through a Rapid Response grant, Students for Sensible Drug Policy to organize the pro-free speech rally. The rally will feature two students who had political campaign t-shirts advocating medical marijuana confiscated by school officials, as well as students prevented from starting an SSDP chapter at their public high school because their principal didn’t agree with the group’s anti-drug war message.  The students will display a large “Free Speech 4 Students” banner on the steps of the Court.

The banner reflects the details of the case, Morse v. Frederick. A Juneau, Alaska, high school student, Joseph Frederick, who was disciplined by his school principal in 2002 for publicly displaying a banner that the school claimed expressed pro-drug sentiments.  While off school property at the public Olympic Torch Relay in Juneau, Frederick unfurled a banner in an attempt to get media attention. The banner bore words whose precise meaning remains elusive: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Although the banner caused no disruption, the school suspended Frederick from classes for five days for allegedly violating the school's anti-drug / zero-tolerance policy. When the principal informed Frederick of his suspension, Frederick responded by quoting Thomas Jefferson and stating that he was simply exercising his constitutional right to free speech.  The principal, in turn, doubled Frederick’s suspension to 10 days. Frederick sued the school for unlawful censorship, and was represented by ACLU of Alaska.

The implications of the case are serious, as a negative decision could threaten to silence a broad body of student speech.

Four years ago DPA filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief in support of free speech when the case was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit sided with DPA’s position in support of the student’s right to engage in drug-related speech free from school punishment.  When the Supreme Court decided to review the decision of the Ninth Circuit, DPA filed a second amicus brief with the Supreme Court.

DPA's brief observes that history and First Amendment precedent rebel against the assertion that school authorities may stop public high school students from speaking on the government-disfavored side of debate. The brief argues, "Students have been active participants in urgent national debates over war and civil rights, as they are in the discussion of drug policy reform, and, given their distinct perspective on many of the most important issues, society has a strong interest in hearing from them."

We will keep you updated on the outcome of this critical case.

Sincerely,

Daniel Abrahamson
Director of Legal Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance