A dispute over a student prank near a high school in Juneau, Alaska, is raising constitutional questions about student free speech and whether school officials can be sued for damages when they take action to muzzle a teenager's attempt at humor.

On Monday, the US Supreme Court takes up a case involving a student-displayed banner that proclaimed: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

At issue is whether a high school principal violated the free-speech rights of a student in 2002 when she confiscated the banner and suspended the student for 10 days after he and others unfurled the sign in front of much of the student body and local television cameras.

The principal's action was upheld by the school superintendent, the Juneau School Board, and a federal judge. But a three-judge panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal judge, ruling that the principal could be sued personally for money damages for violating the student's clearly established free-speech rights.

To Deborah Morse, principal of Juneau- Douglas High School, the banner glorified illegal marijuana use in violation of the school's antidrug policies. "Promotion of illegal drug use and the drug culture is uniquely undeserving of First Amendment protection in the school setting," writes Kenneth Starr, former US solicitor general and a former appeals-court judge, in his brief on behalf of Ms. Morse.

The student, Joseph Frederick, and his lawyers say the principal is misconstruing the case by portraying the central issue as whether schools have the authority to prohibit pro-drug statements by students while on school grounds.

The banner was never displayed on school property during a school-sponsored activity, they say, and it did not cause any disruption to the educational process.

"This case is not about drugs. This case is about speech," says Juneau lawyer Douglas Mertz in his brief to the court on behalf of Mr. Frederick.

The case is being closely watched by school administrators and antidrug officials who are concerned that a ruling upholding the appeals court could undercut school efforts to foster a drug-free atmosphere. On the other side are free-speech advocates who worry that a Supreme Court endorsement of the principal's approach would open the door to widespread censorship of students.

"[Morse has] asked the court to enunciate a very broad rule that school officials have discretion to censor any kind of student speech that they deem contrary to the educational mission of the school," says Preeta Bansal, a New York lawyer who authored a friend-of-the-court brief for the National Coalition Against Censorship. Such discretion would be standardless and "very dangerous," she says.

In his brief, Mr. Mertz asks the justices to examine whether school administrators have the power to censor speech solely because it disagrees with the school's own preferred message.

Page: 1 | 2