Facts The Appellant, Mr. Frederick a student at Juneau High School in Alaska was suspended by the Respondent, Mrs. Morse from school for allegedly promoting the use of marijuana drugs during an event. The appellant is alleged to have in his possession a large banner that read ‘BONG HITS 4 JESUS’ to which the Respondent claimed that it was against the school’s drug policy. She argued inter alia that by the appellant flashing the banner at such an event, it would be implied that he was advocating for the use of Marijuana drugs to other students hence violating the school’s drug policy. The appellant filed a lawsuit against this decision on the ground that his freedom of speech had been violated. The court dismissed his suit hence this appeal before me. Arguments presented The Appellant argued that he had no ill intentions of encouraging the use of drugs and that the wordings on the banner were from a sticker he had seen and thought them funny. He further argued that suspending him, violated his constitutional rights and in particular his freedom of speech. The Respondent on the other hand argued that she acted in good faith as she believed that the banner violated the school’s drug policy. She further argued that she acted in her capacity as a custodian of the school to protect other students to whom she had been entrusted from the illegal use of drugs advocated by the banner. Ruling The two arguments form a solid base and the court had a hard time trying to deliberate on these issues. When is the right of a student said to be violated by the school officials? I shall refer to the decided cases presented to me during the trial and which, I must say played a significant role in my ruling. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. (1969), the court held that the school would be right in upholding the policy that prohibited students to wear antiwar armbands only if they proved that by doing so, the students would be disrupting the running policy of the school. In Hazelwood Schoool Dist. V. Kuhlmeier (1988) , the court granted the school permission to refuse to publish any articles by the students if they felt the speech negated the principles of the school so long as they proved that the declined speech was capable of causing a disciplinary disruption in the school. In the case of the Board of Ed. Of Independent School District No.92 of Pottawatomie County v. Lindsay Earls (2002) , the court held that the burden of proof lay with the school to determine the need for the drug-testing program. Under the above-decided decisions, it is in my opinion that the principal in her view acted within the law. In her interpretation, she deemed the wordings on the banner to be a danger to other students and acted within her capacity to take the necessary action. The trial court supported her decision and held that she did not violate any freedom of speech. However, this decision seems to negate the cardinal principles set in the precedence decisions before me which state that the principal should first demonstrate the danger posed by the speech to uphold the judgment. In this case, the school violated the first amendment rule by failing to show how the speech would have disrupted the school’s work and discipline of the school. I, therefore, order the decision to be reversed a