John F. Tinker Case Study

The central issue in the Stromberg case was whether the state of California violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment by making it illegal to display red flags that suggested support of organizations that dissented organized government or favored anarchic action (Communism). This case was a significant landmark in constitutional law because of the Court’s use of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect a First Amendment right, symbolic speech, from state infringement. It impacted American society in a positive way because it expanded the freedoms in the First amendment and created the doctrine that would be used in cases involving subjects like American flag and draft card burning. The Supreme Court ruled accurately, the government cannot outlaw speech or expressive conduct because it disapproves the ideas expressed. “Nonverbal expressive activity can be banned because of the action it entails, but not the ideas it expresses.” (pg.25)

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.

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

Prior to this case there were two forms of gun control acts the first was that of 1968 which forbids gun sells to sell guns to people that have a felony charge that are mentally unstable and other things this was amended with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which included the need to have a background check. While working to make a system that could make the check fast it had to be done by state law enforcement. People however started to claim that this act was unconstitutional and it violated their rights given to them under the Constitution. The Petitioners filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s interim provisions and in each case the District

The 3 teenagers ended up filing a Civil Rights lawsuit in federal court through their fathers, asking the court to issue an injunction that would bar the school system from further disciplining students in the same situation as well nominal damages. The district court sided with the school board, deciding that the school’s fear of this protest causing disruptions of school discipline was within reason. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling on an evenly divided vote. The students ended up bringing their case to the Supreme Court after that.

The majority opinion leaned towards letting the 4 petitioning kids, seeing that in a multitude of court cases before showed similar conduct. An example of such was the case West Virginia v. Barnette, where students in the public school system are not held to salute the American flag. “The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizens against the State itself and all of its creatures- Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important,

After several months of proceedings, the Court finally decided in favor of the two students early in 1969. Part of the Court's decision revolved around the fact that the students were using

This case started with Linda and Olivier Brown. , Oliver Brown wanted his daughter to attend the nearest school to her neighborhood. The Board of Education made it difficult for him to do this. The Board of Education would not allow her to attend this school because of her race. Linda father did not agree. Being separate was not equal. Linda’s father knew that the white schools were not equal to the white schools; they had more updated equipment, which were in better condition, than colored schools. Separation by color is not equal treatment. Linda Brown’s father wanted the best for her, so he wanted the best-educated school for her. After the principal refused, Oliver went to of the NAACP. National On 1951, more African American parents who children were denied access into white schools, joined to help Mr. Brown and the NAACP start a conclusion in the segregation of schools. Out of all the families now involved in the

In Scott v. School Bd. of Alachua County two Florida students in 2003 were suspended from school for displaying images of the Confederate flag. Both students were told countless times to stop displaying this symbol. One student flew a Confederate flag on the antenna of his truck while the other student wore a T-shirt with the image clearly displayed. The principal believed the Confederate images created an “unhealthy environment and could lead to a dangerous environment at school.” The students sued the school saying that their First Amendment rights were violated. They argued that under Tinker v. Des Moines

Legal Impact of the Decision: The new “no black arm bands” policy at the schools did not prohibit all political symbols, but rather just singled out the black arm bands used to support no involvement in

Both cases were nonviolent and on public ground but in Tinker vs Des Moines ICSD the teens was not arrested. The major difference between these two cases is the color of the individuals’ skin. This essay will pertain to the interest of the first amendment for African Americans and Caucasian in current society.

In “from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District” by Justice Abe Fortas, the Supreme Court creates a strong argument against the disruption of the black armbands. When discussing this argument the author uses a strong expression of logical evidence and a great variety of diction. In “Supreme Court Landmark Series: Tinker v. Des Moines,” an interview with law professor Catherine Ross, more empirical evidence is presented and the wide range of diction and syntax is not presented as advanced as it was in the first article.

Some people thought that they should not be allowed to wear the black arm bands to school. The school was making excuses like "The arm bands are a distraction" to prevent the children from wearing the arm bands. The people in the Supreme Court agreed with the school, that

The students spent a lot of time on the newspaper and were upset at the principal for taking the two articles out. They felt that censorship was a violation of their first amendment rights and they took the case to court. The Court disagreed with the students and said that if the school had a good reason to censor

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution is probably the most compelling piece of evidence for this case. “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment). Basically, these students had every single right to be able to go to school and not be harassed by racist protesters. President Eisenhower had every right to protect these students, because their constitutional rights state that they have the right to equal protection of the