Guiles V. Marineau Case Analysis

I. The court correctly granted summary judgment for the School’s motion; as the Student’s First Amendment rights were not violated.

The District Court dismissed the case, upholding the constitutionality of the school board’s decision to prohibit the students from wearing the armbands. The case later moved onto the US Court of Appeals, where a 4-4 vote upheld the lower court’s decision. They then took their case to the Supreme Court.

Dress codes violate the first amendment. Students should have the ability to express themselves as it is their right to do so, but schools are prohibiting them from being able to express themselves. In the article Are Student Dress Codes a Violation of Civil Rights, Yates Kimberly claims, “If a school district can show that political

In my opinion, this court case gives freedoms to students today when it comes to religious clubs or decisions to participate in religious activities and allows students to make their own choices to determine their path in life.

High school is a vital time in a child’s life to discover who they are as an individual; expressing themselves through clothes is part of this process. If a student is required to wear a uniform everyday, that would create a lack of self expression. The First Amendment states that every human being in the United States is entitled to express themselves (Anderson). When students are forced to wear

Ever since,Tinker vs. Des Moines in 1969 there has been a debate about students can and cannot wear to school. This Tinker vs. Des Moines Supreme Court Case also along the way within the debate brought in the school uniforms. Three young students wore black armbands to school to protest the fighting in Vietnam. Teachers told the students to take the armbands off the students refused to take off the armbands. As a result, the students were suspended. The parents held a meeting at one of the student’s who were suspended. The parents decided to take this case to the District Court. However, the District Court dismissed the complaint that it was constitutionally wrong ,but the Supreme Court disagreed with a ruling of Seven to two. From then on

In December of 1965 Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt were suspended from the Des Moines public school system for wearing black armbands supporting a truce during the Vietnam War (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, n.d). Mary Beth and John’s younger siblings, Hope and Paul, also participated in the protest (Tinker v. Des Moines, 2013). Mary Beth, John, and Christopher’s suspension was lifted following the Christmas break when the students’ planned protest ended and they no longer were going to wear the armbands (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, n.d). The students’ parents sued the school district on behalf of their children (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community

T.M., by A.M. and R.M., his parents, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Cornwall Central School District United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Docket nos. 12-4301, 12-4484(XAP). Decided: April 2, 2014

To examine the history of a case that continues to affect students today, it is important to look at how the discrepancy began starting with Mary Beth, John, and Christopher. The tumultuous 60s can be described by Kelly Shackelford, a constitutional attorney,

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier was a lost fight for the First Amendment rights in schools. When a couple of school journalists’ articles were blocked by the principal of Hazelwood East High School, the students decided that they needed to take their case to the courts. One of the articles was a story about

The Tinker vs. Des Moines case helped determined and interpret legal rights of young citizens for the first time. A group of students made a decision to wear black armbands to school to support a peace establishing agreement during the Vietnam War. As a result, the participating students; Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and John Tinker got suspended for their actions (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District).The school outlawed and attempted to penalize petitioners for a “silent, passive expression of opinion”, that didn’t cause any commotion (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist). The parents decided to sue the school for disrespecting the student’s constitutional rights of expression.

In closing, Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black both give valid testimony for their side of the argument; however, Fortas’ profusion of cited evidence outweighs Black’s mainly opinionated case. And even though this may seem like just another court case to be cited one day, it can go a long way in protecting students’

In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts took note that the Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) ruling decided that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, the Chief Justice also relied upon the precedent set forth in Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) which explained how "the constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically, coextensive with the rights of adults." Additionally, the rights of students are applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment," according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988). The special circumstances in Morse v. Frederick were first that the school has a policy that specifically forbids advocating illegal drug use due to the risks it imposes on other students, and second that principal Morse was forced to decide in the moment whether or not she should act.

The issue of Tinker v. Des Moines ISD was that students were to wear black arm bands to school in protest of the Vietnam War; however the school warned that anyone wearing the armbands would be would be suspended, but the Tinker children wore their armbands to school (they were the only ones of the group to do so) and were suspended leading to Mr. and Mrs. Tinker filing a law suit claiming that the school violated the children's right to freedom of speech and expression. The court ruled against the school district saying that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. In doing so the court protected what has come to be known as "symbolic speech." In the case of Engle v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that prayers in schools were considered unconstitutional, leading to a ban of all prayers led by teachers in school, even if the prayer was considered voluntary, stating, in a way, that there was some sort of “separation of church and state” which is not true. Lastly, New York Times v. Sullivan focused more on the freedom of the press, ruling that “actual malice” must be proven to support a finding of libel against a public figure.

took part in this type of protest. On December 16 - 17 three Tinker siblings