Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. spoke, at least nominally, for five of the six. He said for the court that Ms. Morse’s reaction to the banner, which was displayed off school property but at a school-sponsored event, was a reasonable one that did not violate the Constitution.
While the banner might have been nothing but “gibberish,” the chief justice said, it was reasonable for the principal, who “had to decide to act — or not act — on the spot,” to decide both that it promoted illegal drug use and that “failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge, including Frederick, about how serious the school was about the dangers of illegal drug use.”
He added, “The First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers.”
Four other justices, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., signed the chief justice’s opinion, although Justice Thomas took a much different approach. He said that Mr. Frederick had no First Amendment rights to violate.
Image Douglas Mertz, a lawyer for Joseph Frederick, with the banner that led to a 10-day suspension and a trip to the Supreme Court. Credit... Brian Wallace/The Juneau Empire, via Associated Press
“In light of the history of American public education,” Justice Thomas said, “it cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment ‘freedom of speech’ encompasses a student’s right to speak in public schools.” The court’s precedents had become incoherent, he said, adding, “I am afraid that our jurisprudence now says that students have a right to speak in school except when they don’t.”
Flag of Connecticut
On August 31, United States district court judge Mark Kravitz ruled against Burlington, Connecticut high school student Avery Doninger's request for a preliminary injunction to let her function as class secretary at Lewis S. Mills High School. Doninger had won the Class Secretary position at the high school. Earlier Doninger had posted derogatory comments on her blog about school officials and the school administration did not allow her to take the position as Class Secretary. Doninger alleges that the school's actions violated her First Amendment right to free speech.  

Also at issue is whether Doninger's use of the school's email system for an earlier mass email played a part in the school's decision. The school claims that the email led to serious disruption while Doninger claims that the email was only cited retroactively.

Kravitz ruled that there was not a substantial likelihood that Doninger would win her case against the school and thus declined to grant the injunction. Kravitz stated that although Doninger did not write the blog entry while on-campus, "Avery's blog entry may be considered on-campus speech for the purposes of the First Amendment." Kravits reasoned that the blogs' arguable on-campus nature together with Supreme Courts precedents that students have more limited free speech rights while on campus combined to give Doninger a weak case. 

The ruling has been criticized, with some observers arguing that by Kravitz's logic, almost any online speech by students can be severely restricted by school administrators. This ruling is a setback to Doninger, although she and her family stated that they intend to appeal the injunction and also continue with their lawsuit.

Doninger's case gained national attention earlier after Doninger set up a website to appeal for donations to help with legal fees associated with the cause. The exact limits of students free speech rights in public schools has been a matter of controversy since 1969 when in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District the United States Supreme Court ruled that students have some free speech rights in schools. In later cases, such as Bethel School District v. Fraser, and  Morse v. Frederick, colloquially known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, the Supreme Court ruled that students in public schools while engaging in actions on campus or otherwise affiliated with the school do not enjoy the complete First Amendment protections that would normally apply to citizens in other circumstances.