"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" ruling underscores acute legal concerns.

THE SUPREME COURT RECENTLY RULED AGAINST a former high school student in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner case, which might seem to be a move towards limiting students' free speech rights, although law experts say the legal boundaries are much more complicated than that when it comes to schools.

The National School Boards Association and the American Association of School Administrators applauded the decision. "The Court clearly spoke to the health and the well-being of our students, not their constitutional rights of free speech," says NSBA General Counsel Francisco Negron. "This decision reaffirms the school's role in regulating messages that are detrimental to student welfare."

AASA Executive Director Paul D. Houston was not surprised by the court's decision, but says that determining how best to act in such instances of student behavior can be extremely difficult.

Suzanne K. Bogdan, an attorney with the Education Practice Group at Fisher & Phillips, one of the oldest and largest law firms in the country representing management in employment, civil rights and employee benefits, says that the ruling "does not really change the landscape at all," but she also notes that administrators will almost always face uncertainty when it comes time to act during contentious instances of free speech, with the decisions being made on a case-by-case basis.

The case, Morse v. Frederick, dates back to when Joseph Frederick unveiled a 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002 during a school-sanctioned Olympic Torch Relay pass for the Salt Lake City Winter Games. Principal Deborah Morse ordered him to remove the sign and he refused, which led to his suspension and then a lawsuit against the school.

Bogdan says school leaders walk an extremely fine line and "must often make split-second decisions" when considering how to respond during instances of disruptive student behavior concerning free speech. She says that avoiding lawsuits boils down to establishing that the behavior in question is "substantial and material" from a reasonable perspective.

What makes a perspective "reasonable" can be difficult to ascertain, for Bogdan feels that, given its tone and the culture we live in, the banner in question was an inappropriate promotion of illegal drug use and that the principal's response was justified. She notes, however, that if the banner instead had said "Legalize Marijuana," the school would have had a much harder case, and the court might have in fact ruled in favor of the student.

Bogdan says the best way for school leaders to avoid lawsuits (or win cases) is to become as familiar as possible with first amendment cases in schools and hold workshops and sessions so administrators and superintendents can bounce ideas off one another.