ED506 Reading Questions Morse v Frederick (2)

.docx

School

Southeast Missouri State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

506

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChefSnakeMaster968

ED506 Reading Questions – Morse v. Frederick 1.Briefly describe the events that led up to this case. What was the background setting for the event? What did Frederick do? What did Morse do? What happened after that? The winter games were taking place in Salt Lake City, Utah and the Olympic Torch Relay was passing through Juneau, Alaska on January 24, 2002. Juneau-Douglas High School was located near the path of which the torch was on to Salt Lake City. The school decided to hold a school-sanctioned and school supervised event which allowed students and teachers to attend the Olympic Torch Relay in front of the school. Joseph Fredrick is a JDHS senior who attended the Olympic Torch Relay (was also late to school that day). He arrived at the event with friends which all but one were JDHS students. When students were at the event, not all of them were on their best behavior. Some students became antsy and began to throw plastic cola bottles and snowballs. Some students were also being very rough with one another. As the torchbearers and camera crew arrived, Fredricks and his friends displayed a 14-foot banner which read: “BONG HITS 4 JESUS.” When Principal Morse saw this, he walked over to the kids and told them to take the banner down. All of them followed directions except for Joseph Fredrick. Principal Morse ended up taking the banner and told Fredrick to meet her after the event where she then suspended him for 10 days. Principal Morse’s reasoning for doing so was for violating the school policy in which Fredrick encouraged illegal drug use. Fredrick then appealed the suspension which then put it in the hands of Juneau School Districts Superintendent. The Superintendent upheld the decision of the principal but limited the number of days of suspension from 10 to 8. Fredrick then filed suit saying that the school board and Principal Morse violated his First Amendment rights. In the district courts, the final decision was in favor Principal Morse that she did not violate the students First Amendment right to freedom of speech due to the promotion of drug use. Then, Fredrick had the court escalated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the decision was reversed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that Fredrick was punished for his message rather than for any disturbance making the punishment unconstitutional. Then the case was escalated once more to the Supreme Court where they reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision by a 5-4 vote. The Supreme Court stated that due to Tinker the principal was within reason for making the student take the sign down and did not violate the students First Amendment right. (Groups like the ACLU and other groups adopted the situation as a cause célèbre for their first amendment agendas in the federal judiciary system.)

2. (a) What school board rules did Morse cite to justify her actions? (b) What legal reasoning did Fredrick cite to defend his actions? (Describe the Constitutional justification and how he interpreted his rights in relation to the school’s ability to limit those rights). a. Principal Morse justified her actions by using the school board rule in which they do not allow the promotion of illegal drug use (policy # 5520). The second policy used was #5850 which state that students who attend class trips are held to the same rules as if they were at school. “Policy No. 5520 states: "The Board specifically prohibits any assembly or public expression that ... advocates the use of substances that are illegal to minors .... " Id., at 53a. In addition, Juneau School Board Policy No. 5850 subjects "[p]upils who participate in approved social events and class trips" to the same student conduct rules that apply during the regular school program. Id., at 58a. “ b. Fredrick stated that the principal and school were stripping him of his First Amendment right of freedom of speech. Fredrick argued that this is not a school speech and that he was not at school. If he were not under the supervision of the school, his first amendment rights would allow him to hold the banner. The school can limit students’ freedom of speech if it is a disturbance to others learning or if it promotes something like drugs which specifically is stated within the policies of not being allowed. The school can do such things while school is in session or even at school sanctioned and supervised events. 3. What was the majority opinion (“ruling”) of the court regarding the resolution of this case? Who “won” and why (What was the Court’s ruling regarding the school’s ability to limit student speech in this case)? The ruling of the Supreme Court was a 5-4 decision which stated that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use. With that being said, Principal Morse “won” the court case since she did just that. Therefore, the Courts ruling regarding the school’s ability to limit student speech if it involves the promotion of illegal drug use. 4. Justice Roberts cited three major student speech cases establishing relevant precedents used to evaluate the claims in this case. What were these three cases and what major precedent from each case did he cite? Note: This does not ask for the specific circumstances in each preceding case. Instead it asks what were the guiding principles regarding student speech that were derived from each case. The three major student speech cases that Chief Justice Roberts cited were Tinker v. Des Moines , Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Frase r, and Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier . In Tinker v. Des Moines, it states that students do not lose their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at school. In Bethel School Dist. v. Fraser, it states that the constitutional rights of students in public school are not the same as adults in other places. In Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, it states that schools do not have to allow student speech if it is inconsistent with the schools' educational mission.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help