Most criticisms of Supreme Court rulings are based on nothing more than an antipathy for the result and insufficient understanding of the legal precedents. Such a case can certainly be made for the school busing and the campaign finance cases. However, the opinion in Morse v. Fredrick is just the opposite. The outcome can be reasonably defended but the decision is the worst in recent memories.

Briefly the background of the case is this: When the Olympic torch relay passed by Juneau-Douglas High School principal Morse let the students outside during school hours, still under supervision, to watch the procession. At the event Fredrick, along with others, displayed a banner proclaiming “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” Principal Morse disciplined them for this behavior and Fredrick sued claiming his free speech rights were violated.

Now the result in this case can quite reasonably be defended. If you think that watching the relay was similar to a school field trip the school could reasonably ban students from display unofficial banners. Even if the school would allow general political speech at the relay, e.g., as they would during a nomination for student government, one could reasonably hold that the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner wasn’t serious expression but mere disruptive humor or acting out similar to calling a teacher “a hairy moron” or the sexually suggestive speech in Bethel School District v. Fraser. However, the court (implausibly in my opinion) instead interpreted the banner to be a serious advocacy of illegal drug use and held that it wasn’t protected because it advocated illegal drug use. Indeed the official summary (accurately) describes the opinion as holding:

Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick.

In other words the court found a special ‘promoting illegal drug use’ exception somewhere in the first amendment. Importantly the court admits that this situation would not fall into the general first amendment exception for inviting imminent lawless action. It really is just a special exception to the first amendment for advocating drugs use. Alito did author a second opinion, joined by Kennedy which states:

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.”

But it’s not clear if this is comforting or disturbing. For starters the fact that Roberts and Scalia didn’t join this opinion (Thomas would have just done away with free speech rights for students in general) is distressing. Worse as this post¹ by Eugene Volokh nicely lays out it just doesn’t seem coherent to support the holding of the opinion while claiming not to support any restriction on free speech “that can plausibly by interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue.” To give my own spin on what Professor Volokh is saying: unless Alito is saying that mere advocacy of illegal drug use is ipso facto not commenting on a political or social issue it seems that telling people to smoke more marijuana is necessarily a commentary on social issue, whether people should smoke marijuana.

Now no matter what you think about the drug war an exception to the first amendment based on the idea being expressed should be deeply disturbing. Deterring youth drug use might be an important government aim² but so too is/was defeating communism, preserving our democracy and helping the poor. If it is acceptable to ban advocacy of illegal drugs because the idea it expresses is harmful what prevents us from banning advocacy of communism, an unelected presidency or even cuts to welfare? If what counts as commentary on a political or social issue and hence what deserves free speech protection effectively turns on someone’s judgement that it is a reasonably viewpoint (apparently unlike thinking people should do drugs) then we don’t have any free speech protection at all.

Certainly it is better that this ruling was restricted to the case of student speech but the reasoning behind a supreme court decision often has as much impact as the ruling itself. I think I might have been more comfortable with a ruling (like Thomas favored) which denied students free speech entirely than one which legitimated a viewpoint based standard for free speech protection. I could go on for days about what a bad decision this was but I’ll stop here and let Steven’s dissent³ convey my feelings about the matter (emphasis mine):

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 that Frederick has disavowed. … [T]he 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