June 25 (Bloomberg) -- A divided U.S. Supreme Court put new limits on student speech rights, ruling against an Alaska high school senior who was suspended after hoisting a banner declaring ``Bong Hits 4 Jesus'' during an event in front of his school.

The justices said public school officials have broad power to curtail expression they see as undermining their efforts to educate students about the harms of illegal drug use.

``The First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers,'' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

The ruling is the court's first pronouncement on student speech rights in almost two decades. It creates a new exception to a 1969 Supreme Court decision that said school administrators generally can't restrict students from speaking out, as long as they aren't being disruptive.

Four justices -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito -- joined the entirety of Roberts's opinion. A fifth, Stephen Breyer, said the court should have ruled only that the student couldn't sue the school's principal for damages. Breyer said he would have stopped short of resolving the constitutional question.

A federal appeals court had said former student Joseph Frederick could pursue his lawsuit against principal Deborah Morse and the Juneau School Board. The lower court also concluded that Morse wasn't entitled to ``qualified immunity,'' a legal doctrine that shields government officials from having to pay damages unless they violate a clearly established right.

Olympic Torch Relay

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Stevens said the court ``does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding -- indeed, lauding - - a school's decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed.''

Frederick, then 18, joined several friends in displaying the banner during the January 2002 Olympic torch relay, which passed by Juneau-Douglas High School during the school day. Frederick was among hundreds of students who were permitted to gather outside the school to watch the event.

Frederick, who hadn't been in class earlier in the day, was standing on a sidewalk across the street from the school. Morse told Frederick to take down the banner and, when he refused, confiscated it. She later suspended him for 10 days, and the school board upheld her decision.

Established Policy

``It was reasonable for her to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use -- in violation of established school policy -- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge,'' Roberts wrote. He also said the event was a school-sanctioned event even though Frederick wasn't standing on campus grounds.

Stevens, in dissent, said the school's anti-drug policy ``cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs.''

Frederick says the banner was meant to be funny and didn't convey any substantive meaning or advocate illegal drug use.

``It's a very strong message that we should be more understanding of the difficult situation in which school administrators find themselves,'' said Kenneth Starr, who argued the case for Morse and the school board. Starr is the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

Frederick's attorney, Douglas K. Mertz, said the ruling ``allows the censorship of student speech without any evidence that school activities were disrupted.''

Political Debates

Frederick was supported at the Supreme Court by an unlikely alliance that included the American Civil Liberties Union, gay- rights advocates and social conservatives who urged the court not to restrict students from voicing opinions on important social and political issues.

The Bush administration asked the court to give school administrators broad authority to punish students who advocate illegal drug use.

Roberts suggested the case might have been resolved differently had Frederick been involved in a political discussion, saying ``this is plainly not a case about political debate over the criminalization of drug use or possession.''

Alito, in a concurring opinion joined by Kennedy, said the ruling ``provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue.''

The Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that school administrators couldn't bar students from wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War in a non-disruptive way. The court later said administrators can punish lewd or vulgar student expression and can regulate school-sponsored speech, including student newspapers.

The case is Morse v. Frederick, 06-278.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: June 25, 2007 15:39 EDT