Sharp eye. In the public outrage, very little. In the actual upholding of the state action by the (conservative) Supreme Court as not violating his 1A rights, considerably. Although, as the liberal side agreed, that argument was pretty comically farcical to me. All of them, iirc, agreed that the school could exercise discretion in maintaining order (the liberals said that an actual showing of interference with the educational process or retention of administrative order was, however, required - while the conservatives more or less said that minors don't get rigid free speech rights), but only the conservatives actually made the argument that prohibiting endorsement of drug use (by millennia-dead religious figures?) was the school's primary interest.