The Drug Policy Alliance is working to protect the freedom of speech--including speech critical of current government drug policies--in public high schools by filing friend-of-the-court briefs in the case Morse v. Frederick, currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.  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.  The implications of this case are serious, as a negative decision would threaten to silence a broad body of student speech.

Jump to court documents:

• DPA Supreme Court Amicus Brief
• DPA Ninth Circuit Amicus Brief
• Ninth Circuit Opinion

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."

The case involves 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. He lost in federal district court and appealed his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where he sought DPA's assistance as a friend-of-the-court.  In 2006 the federal court of appeals handed down a resounding First Amendment victory for the student and for the principles advocated by DPA.  The high school principal retained famed lawyer Kenneth W. Starr and appealed the case that is now before the Supreme Court.  Oral arguments in the case will be held on March 19, 2007.

Signatories to the amicus brief, the Drug Policy Alliance and the Campaign for New Drug Policies, are two organizations that play pivotal roles in drug law reform and whose work could be significantly impacted if the Supreme Court rolls back the First Amendment's core commitment to public discussion.

DPA'S amicus brief observes that Supreme Court precedent recognizes "... suppressing speech based on disapproval of the idea expressed-–viewpoint discrimination-–to be no less serious 'inside the schoolhouse gate' than outside."  The brief argues that society's unquestioned interest in deterring youth drug abuse does not support the suppression of student speech, and that censorship by government and school authorities can in fact be counter-productive to the goals of reducing student drug use and drug related harms. DPA'S brief warns, "...Censorship here is a profoundly bad drug abuse prevention strategy... because schools cannot talk to students through a 'closed circuit'; because students receive so much other drug-related information, and alarmist approach, which lacks candor and credibility, does not work."