Introduction
The United States Supreme Court, which was established under the judicial act of 1789, is the highest judicial organ in the US. This court is the one that leads the legal branch of the United States government. The Supreme Court is made up of nine judicial members, its head being the chief justice with eight other members. All these judicial members are appointed by the head of state with approval from the United States senate.
Main body
The Supreme Court reviews all the cases that are filed by the federal and state courts and decide which cases are to be heard. This court is independent; this gives it the mandate to check the other two arms of the government that is the Legislature and the Executive. The decisions of this court can only be changed through a constitutional amendment. The federal and state courts are created by members of the congress. The history of this court is usually described by Chief Justices who preside over it as it I am going to discuss later in my essay.
Civil right liberties are essential individual rights like freedom of association, worship and speech, protected by law against unlawful state, government or other people’s interference. With this in mind I will asses the impact of the Supreme Court on the future of key liberties in the United States.
Let us consider the case of Morse v Frederick. The case revolves around a high school principal named Deborah Morse and one of her students named Joseph Frederick. In this case, Mrs. Deborah Morse, who was the supplicant in the case, allowed members of staff and students of her school to participate in the Olympic torch relay which was passing by their school, heading to Salt Lake City for the summer games.
The students were to watch as the touch and its bearers passed by from one side of the street, while the teachers and other school administrators monitor keenly how the students acted and behaved because they were the custodians of the students. The claimant, Mr. Frederick Joseph a senior at the Juneau- Douglass School came late to school that day only to find that his school mates had already gone for the event.
Frederick joined his friends and peers for the event across the street and as the torch carriers and the cameramen were passing by, the student and his pals unfolded a banner written “BONG HITS 4 JESUS”. When Mrs. Morse saw the banner, she was so furious with her students that she crossed the street and ordered Frederick and his friends to pull down the banner.
His friends obliged but Frederick refused. The principal impounded the banner and gave Frederick marching orders to her office where he was suspended for 10 good days.
The principal later explained her actions; she claimed that she ordered her students to pull down the banner because she thought it supported illegal drug use by the juniors in violation to the school’s board policy number 5520 which stated that the board prohibited any public expression that advocated for the use of substances that were illegal to minors.
Although Frederick appealed his suspension, the school upheld it, but reduced the suspension to eight days.
In his memorandum the board’s superintendent determined that Frederick was indiscipline and that the school differed with his message because it supported the use of illegal drugs.
However in April 25th, 2002 Frederick filed a civil right law suit in the United States district court at Alaska against his principal and the school. In his suit, Frederick claimed that the institution had violated his constitutional rights for freedom of speech and therefore claimed unstipulated compensation on damages, an attorney’s fee and an injunctive relief. In its ruling, the district court at Alaska ruled in favor of the Juneau- Douglass School’s board and the principal.
The court argued that Morse was reasonable in asking Frederick and his friends to pull down the banner because it contained contravening information where it encouraged drug abuse.
However Frederick appealed against this decision on the 9th Circuit court of appeal which reversed the ruling claiming that the words used by Frederick and his friends on the banner may be interpreted in many different ways depending on personal views, but the words did not sound plainly offensive.
The school was not happy with the decision, they later appealed to the Supreme Court on 1st December. In reference to tinker v Des Moines independent community district, Kenneth Starr who was petitioning on behalf of Morse defined the disruptiveness as behavior inimical to the education mission of the school specifically to the violation of the school’s policy to support state laws with respect to the control of illegal drugs, in this case marijuana. A deputy solicitor general spoke on behalf of the government by supporting the petitioner Mrs. Morse.
Edwin Kneeder, who was a former deputy solicitor general, referenced the cases of Board of Education v Earls and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier he cited that the first amendment did not expect school officials to stand by and allow their students to promote the illegal use of drugs.
On 25th June 2007, the Supreme Court under chief justice Roberts ruled in favor of Morse and the school. In his ruling the chief justice who was writing for the majority concluded that the principal and the school did not violate the First amendment by pulling down the banner and suspending Frederick. The opinion ruled that the banners message was obscure and it was referring to illegal drugs without any doubts. Because the banner was presented during a school event, it obviously made it a school speech rather than a normal speech on the streets (Civil Rights and Human Rights).
This case drew a sharp reaction from members of the legal and political community. In relation to this case I feel that the Supreme Court’s decisions have weakened civil rights liberties. From this case, Frederick was never punished for disrupting a school event. I feel he was punished for expressing an opinion different from that which the school wanted expressed relating to the use of drugs.
There is nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision that can change the verdict of those people who were against Mrs. Morse and her supporters in relation to this case. “A very important lesson that any given school should teach its students is lessons on the moral inappropriateness of using aggression or violence to express opinions that one disagrees with”(principals office).
The School Board and the principal Mrs. Morse failed this test miserably, and now the Supreme Court has repeated the same mistake.
The atheist ethical journal published on 25th June 2007 tends to reason in the same manner. This leaves most of the people who support civil liberties in a state of wonder, what is the meaning of freedom of expression if the court cannot protect the citizens against infringement of their basic rights? In his ruling, Judge Robert should have recognized that Frederick heaved up his banner during a school-sponsored and supervised activity which is natural of a field trip.
The New York Times shed light on this case on March 18th, 2007, although it does not show clearly which side among the two it supports.
The majority of opinion polls suggest that the Chief Justice, Mr. Roberts never projected what the rationale of a school might have been, or what kind of citizenship would result from a good civic education (Kennedy p80). In relation to the 9th circuit the United States court of appeal went against this circuit. In its first adjustment the circuit gave students the rights to expression so long as the speech could not cause violence and disturbance to members of the public. The polls tend to support Frederick by arguing that he was punished for the message he passed across instead of any disturbance he and his friends might have caused.
Most School staff does not teach or train as the ruling tends to purport; they are supposed to maintain and provide care for their students. Apart from these suggestions the polls have almost nothing to say about education itself.
The polls have put forward some nagging questions to those who supported Morse, a good example of the question is, why do most of us operate complicated school systems and need audience from the law? A majority of Morse’s supporters never attempt to give a valid answer. (Sean).
The polls argued that a majority of us might consider the lack of a stated educational goal to be an asset, because it allows school boards like the one in Juneau Douglas High School decide their own charge to free judicial influence.
However the main question before the Court was whether something about the school locale required this case to be evaluated under different standards.
The lack of standards was clearly noticeable in the majority’s argument. According to the majority, that case was not really about good manners, or the school’s control over the speech it supported. A majority of the polls also suggest that the analysis applied in Bethel was not clear in relation to this case.
The media has given different interpretations to the case of Morse v Frederick on how our politicians reacted to the case. For example The New York Times clearly states that the Bush’s Administration supported the ruling by the Supreme Court in favor of Mrs. Morse.
Scholars have misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on speech by students in Public schools. Some argue in support of the court’s verdict while others argue in support.
In the book How will Morse v. Frederick Be Applied, a scholar named Erwin Chemerinsky explores the end results of the courts decision. “the opinion of the majority was misguided and highly undesirable in relation to the first amendment.”
Many scholars see the Tinker v Des Moines as the lee way to student speech protection. The emerging scholarly literature on Morse v Frederick views the courts decision as the latest step forward in the court’s retreat.
In particular, scholars have condemned Bong Hits’ requirement that courts defer to educators’ sensible determinations of what speech constitutes encouragement of illegal drug use.
A renowned scholar David L. Hudson Jr argues that the freedom of speech by students of the United States went up in smoke. He says that chief justice John Roberts ruling on the case limited significantly student’s speech rights. The students seem to have lost their freedom in relation to the first amendment. Although it is right for the school to prohibit expressions that may advocate for illegal drug use, the school had no right of sending Frederick home for suspension.
A good number of political and science scholars argue that the courts ruling is in contrast to the sharp judicial scrutiny, by disparity the note argues that Tinker, while employing strong speech protective rhetoric required that courts should defer to educators reasonable determinations of what speech may cause to a substantial disruption and it actually provides only the modest protection for students speech (Hoyt p56).
On the same note, by comparing the Tinker standards to Fraser and Kuhlmeier reveals that there is no change to the educators and therefore offers little or no protection to the student’s right of speech.
The study of the three standards is supported by a complete review of lower court’s decision from 1969-2007 by applying Tinker, Kuhlmeier and Fraser.
Many scholars have also misinterpreted Tinker, Fraser and Kuhlmeire and as a result they have been unable to address why Bong hits’ requirement of defense to the schools board reasonable judgment is any less acceptable than Tinker’s.
This note also tries to provide an explanation to this, centering its attention to fundamental differences between the two types of tests articulated in the two decisions and analogizing to the first amendment jurisprudence outside the schoolhouse gate.
In conclusion, many cases involving free speech rights to many people including school student have recently come to adopt two general principles; First off, the constitutional right of free speech is applicable selectively to students who attend public schools (journal of education Controversy).
Secondly, the defense offered by the constitution may apply in weaker schools. This second argument means that the result in a given case will highly depend on a Court’s view of what a good education means, that is, a Court’s view of what education is for.
But unlike the previous decisions on this matter, a majority of polls regarding the case of Morse and Frederick have shown great disinterest in the purpose of education if learning institutions cannot uphold its student’s right of speech.
As a judgment, the First amendment was meant to protect student’s speech, if the message they conveyed neither violated a permissible rule or expressly advocated for conducts that are illegal and harmful to students.
In Frederick’s argument, he clearly stated that his banner did not advocate for drug abuse neither did it go against the first amendment, therefore the Court did a serious violation to the First Amendment by supporting and lauding the school’s board decision to punish Frederick for expressing views with which it disagreed with.
Conclusion
We should not see Frederick’s banner as a politically motivated speech because he never advocated for the permit ion of marijuana for students, he was right when he said he did what he did because he wanted to be captured on the screen that night.
However the Supremes court decision did not the matter completely, Frederick seems to have won the suit because the school agreed to pay him 45,000 dollars and promised to settle the remaining amount including the claims under the Alaskan constitution. For many civil rights liberty supporters this serves as an example of a way forward in achieving the civil liberty we so desperately need.
References
”American Civil Liberties Union” (2008). Web.
Civil Rights and Human Rights. Lawyersandsettlements.
Goldberg, Goldberg, and Greenwald. Free Country: Freedom in America. New York: RVD Books, 2002:56-234.
Hoyt, Edwin P. “Suppressing the Dissents”. Seabury Press, 1969:45-78.
Kennedy Ouma. “Civil Liberties”. Touchstone 2001: 56-99.
Linda Greenhouse. “American Civil Liberties Union Free-Speech Case Divides Bush and Religious Right. Web. Ohio state university.
Marjorie Heins. “Supreme Court Carves Out a New Exception to Student Free Speech”. 2007:34-78. Web.
Politics in NY, NJ, PA, CT, FL, and nation. Web.
Sean R. Nuttall (2008).”Rethinking the Academic Narrative on Judicial Deference in Student Speech Cases”.
Erwin Chemerinsky. How will Morse v. Frederick Be Applied. Touchstone (2008: 57-90).