Justices back curbs on student speech

The Supreme Court on Monday curbed students' rights to advocate drug use or even joke about it, ruling against a former Alaska high-school student who raised a banner at a sports rally in Juneau that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

Unamused by the 2002 antic and unpersuaded by free-speech arguments, the court's conservative majority ruled that a school principal acted reasonably in suspending the sign-waving student even though he wasn't on school grounds.

More generally, the ruling enhances school authorities' power to control students' behavior.

"Schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.

Four other justices joined Roberts fully in the decision. A fifth, Justice Stephen Breyer, agreed with the majority for different reasons.

Students still have some First Amendment rights under the court's ruling.

Justice Samuel Alito, in an important concurring opinion, stressed students are still capable of commenting on political and social issues including "the wisdom of the war on drugs" itself.

"The court went out of its way to protect the free speech rights of students," said Brad Dacus, the president of the conservative Pacific Justice Institute, based in Sacramento, Calif.

These rights, though, can be outweighed by the school's need for discipline — especially when it comes to drugs, the court's majority concluded.

Citing statistics, including surveys that found that about half of high-school seniors have tried illicit drugs, the court's majority stressed the "special characteristics of the school environment" in justifying the regulation of students' speech.

"Deterring drug use by schoolchildren is an important, indeed, perhaps compelling interest," wrote Roberts, himself the father of two children.

The court's three dissenters said the decision in the case, Morse v. Frederick, amounted to discrimination against specific viewpoints.

"The court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding — indeed, lauding — a school's decision to punish [a student] for expressing a view with which it disagreed," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.

Endangered-species win for developers

The court sided with developers and the Bush administration Monday in a dispute with environmentalists over protecting endangered species.

The court ruled 5-4 for home builders and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a case that involved the intersection of two environmental laws, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, said the endangered-species law takes a back seat to the clean-water law when it comes to the EPA handing authority to a state to issue water-pollution permits. Developers often need such permits before they can begin building.

A federal appeals court had said the EPA did not do enough to ensure endangered species would not be harmed if the state took over the permitting.

Environmental groups, backed by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal, said the administration position would gut a key provision of the endangered-species law. The act bars federal agency action that would jeopardize a species and calls for consultation between federal agencies.

Rancher loses dispute over land

The court ruled against a Wyoming rancher who sued government employees in a dispute over federal access to a road on his land.

Harvey Robbins of Hot Springs County, Wyo., accused six employees in the Bureau of Land Management of trying to coerce him into granting an easement on a road leading to the Shoshone National Forest.

In a 7-2 ruling, the court said Robbins could not sue under the Fifth Amendment, which requires just compensation when the government takes property.

The case is important to the government because it could have exposed individual federal workers to personal liability.

The suit is significant in the West, where huge tracts are intermingled among government and private owners, requiring frequent negotiations for reciprocal access.

Robbins also sued under the racketeering law, accusing the government employees of trying to extort an easement from him.

The vote on that portion of the case was 9-0 against Robbins.

Robbins owns a working cattle ranch and guest ranch offering cattle drives and big-game hunting.

He says the government employees trespassed on his property and canceled his right of way across federal lands, resulting in the destruction of his business.

He was charged with interfering with the work of federal officers. A jury acquitted him.

The government canceled Robbins' special recreational- se permit, saying he had repeatedly failed to comply with its terms.

Also

All-white jury: The court will consider whether racial bias played a part in the 1996 murder conviction of a black man by an all-white Louisiana jury.

Two years ago, the high court ordered the Louisiana Supreme Court to look again at its ruling that race was not a factor in the conviction of Allen Snyder, who is on death row for the stabbing death of a man.

When the state Supreme Court came back with the same ruling, Snyder appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear the case.

Cigarettes: The Supreme Court agreed to consider reinstating Maine's law aimed at regulating Internet sales of cigarettes to keep them out of the hands of minors.

Trade associations for delivery companies successfully argued in an appeals court that a federal statute supporting the free flow of interstate commerce pre-empted the Maine law.

Compiled from McClatchy Newspapers, The Associated Press and Newhouse News Service.