Students First Amendment rights in school: Morse v. Frederick

The most recent Supreme Court decision on student speech  was decided in June of 2007.  In Morse a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, Joseph Frederick, was suspended for holding a banner as the Olympic Torch Relay passed through Juneau, Alaska. The banner read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.”The school had allowed students to leave class early that day to watch the relay. After Frederick had revealed the banner the principal confiscated it and suspended Frederick for ten days. Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment.

The Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' holding that school officials have the authority to "restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use."  The Supreme Court created another new standard that allowed for more authority for schools to punish student speech. The new standard that was created in Morse made it that “schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use."  The Court held that Fredericks constitutional rights had not been violated.

Students First Amendment rights in school: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

The Supreme Court created a second distinction from Tinker in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.  In Kuhlmeier, the principal of Hazelwood East High School removed two articles written by students from the school newspaper. One of the stories described three unidentified Hazelwood East students' experiences with pregnancy; the other discussed the impact of divorce on named students at the school. The principal was concerned over the content of two stories, one that described the experiences of three pregnant Hazelwood high school students and another that discussed the impact of divorce on students at the school.  The students sued claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court acknowledged both Tinker and Fraser in their analysis finding that the school was not a public forum and the school had a right to control the paper as part of the schools’ curriculum. The Court ruled in favor of the school district stating "educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." 

---

Students First Amendment rights in school: Bethel v. Fraser

In 1983 in Pierce County, Washington a high school senior Matthew Fraser,  gave a speech nominating his classmate Jeff Kuhlman for student body vice president. The speech went as follows:

"I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most [of] all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts - he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally - he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end - even the climax, for each and every one of you. So please vote for Jeff Kuhlman, as he'll never come between us and the best our school can be. He is firm enough to give it everything." [Long pause after the word "come" on oral delivery, but no comma in the written version, according to Matthew N Fraser]

Fraser appealed through the grievance procedures of his school, but was found to be in violation of a school policy against disruptive behavior. Fraser was suspended for two days from his school and wasn't allowed to speak at his graduation ceremony and his name was taken off the ballot used to elect graduation speakers. Fraser was still elected by a write-in vote but Bethel High School administrators refused to accept it and they denied Fraser the opportunity to speak at graduation. Fraser responded by filing a lawsuit against the school  claiming a violation of his First Amendment right and the U.S. District Court ruled in his favor.

The school district then appealed the decision to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which also ruled for Fraser. The school district asked the United States Supreme Court to consider the case and it agreed to do so. In a 7 -2 decision the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Appeals Court and upheld the suspension. The Court distinguished this case from Tinker v. Des Moines, which upheld the right for students to express themselves where their words are nondisruptive and could not be seen as connected with the school, the ruling in Fraser can be seen as a limitation on the scope of that ruling, prohibiting certain styles of expression that are sexually vulgar.

Students First Amendment rights in school: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

In December 1965 in Des Moines, Iowa three teenagers, John F. Tinker his younger sister Mary Beth Tinker and their friend Christopher Eckhardt decided to wear black armbands to their schools in protest of the Vietname War. The principals of the Des Moines schools banned the wearing of armbands to school. Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. These three students chose to violate this policy. All three were suspended from school. A suit was not filed until after the Iowa Civil Liberties Union approached their family, and the ACLU agreed to help the family with the lawsuit. Their parents, in turn, filed suit in U.S. District Court, which upheld the decision of the Des Moines school board. A tie vote in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit meant that the U.S. District Court's decision continued to stand, and forced the Tinkers and Eckhardts to appeal to the Supreme Court directly. The case was argued before the court on November 12, 1968.

The court decided 7 to 2 that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. The court famously stated, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.