Right Cause, Wrong Case: ACLJ Asks High Court to Select Better Case to Decide the Free Speech

"It would be regrettable if the Court were to resolve the important questions of constitutional law . . . in the context of a jokester's prank, rather than a student's bearing of a serious message." - American Center for Law and Justice

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2007—Understanding that students don't surrender their free-speech rights at the classroom door, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) today asked the Supreme Court of the United States to protect the rights of students to express their views on controversial topics that may be deemed unacceptable to a school district.

In December, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case of Morse v. Frederick, an Alaska-based case involving a school district that suspended a student for displaying a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"-which the school contends advocates marijuana use. The student admits the banner was displayed for one reason-to attract media attention during a parade when the Olympic torch passed through Juneau in 2002 on its way to Salt Lake City. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the student and the school district asked the Supreme Court to take the appeal.

"We strongly disagree with the student's message in the case but believe there is a much broader constitutional principle at stake here-protecting the First Amendment rights of students to express themselves-especially if the school district considers the message offensive," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ. "A decision to ban the student's controversial speech would set a dangerous precedent and open the door for school districts to prohibit student speech that it considers offensive-speech in the future that could advocate a pro-family or pro-life message."

The ACLJ is asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision to hear the case. "This is an extremely poor test case that should not even be considered by the Supreme Court. Even though the Supreme Court has decided to hear this case, we argue it should revisit that decision and reject this case," said Sekulow. "But if it does not, then the high court should let the lower court decision stand, which protects the constitutional rights of students to exercise their free speech rights.

In its friend-of-the-court brief filed today at the high court, the ACLJ makes several arguments. First, the high court should change its mind and reject this case by dismissing the Writ of Certiorari it granted in December when it decided to take the case. "Given the ready availability of other vehicles to address the important issues at stake, this Court should dismiss the present writ as improvidently granted," the brief states. 

Second, if the high court does decide to hear arguments in this case, it should protect the free speech rights of students. The brief asserts: "The school district has engaged in blatant viewpoint-based censorship of student speech . . . A school's basic educational mission does not confer blanket authorization for viewpoint suppression of student speech."

Oral arguments in this case are scheduled for Feb. 28.

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C. The ACLJ is online at www.aclj.org.

-30-