Search results
Frederick filed suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that the school board and Morse had violated his First Amendment rights. The District Court granted peti tioners summary judgment, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had not infringed Frederick’s speech rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed.
25 cze 2007 · In Morse v. Frederick, the majority acknowledged that the Constitution affords lesser protections to certain types of student speech at school or at school-supervised events. It found that Frederick message was, by his own admission, not political, as was the case in Tinker.
MORSE v. FREDERICK Syllabus the school and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circumstances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school. Pp. 400-401. (b) The Court agrees with Morse that those who viewed the banner
This moot court concerns the case of Morse v. Frederick in which the Supreme Court found that school officials are permitted to stop students from promoting illegal drug use, and it is no First Amendment violation.
Frederick originally was suspended from school for 10 days for violating school policy, which forbids advocating the use of illegal drugs. The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska ruled for Morse, saying that Frederick's action was not protected by the First Amendment.
At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating BONG HiTS 4 JESUS, which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner.
Frederick sued in federal district court for unspecified monetary damages claiming that his First Amendment rights had been violated.
