As the Supreme Court begins its 2007-08 term we can only hope it finds a case to redeem itself from the thud and intellectual debris that ended the last term in Morse v. Frederick. That’s the case in which student Joseph Frederick unfurled a banner with the attention-grabbing words “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” as Olympic Torch Relay passed in front of his Juneau, Alaska, public high school. Students were given time away from class to attend the parade, but in no other respect was it a school project or event. Nevertheless, the principal swiftly confiscated the banner and then suspended Frederick because, she said, the message celebrated illegal drug use.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court and ruled the principal didn’t violate Frederick’s First Amendment freedom. In the Court’s written opinion, Chief Justice Roberts noted Frederick’s motives and the nature of his message and the problem of drug use among young people, as if any of those should determine First Amendment rights. He also noted that “school principals have a difficult job” and deserve some latitude to make on-the-spot decisions. But while that’s certainly true, it’s odd that the Court wouldn’t also discuss Frederick’s liberty and the increasingly difficult job of exercising it in today’s society.

Morse v. Frederick made a further mess of student free-speech law. Clarity is needed both for student speakers and for public school officials. But more broadly, the case raises an alarming prospect: that this Court will work harder to protect government institutions than to safeguard the “unalienable right” of expressive liberty that private individuals and organizations should enjoy.