Morse V Frederick Case Brief

The case was heard by the Supreme Court on November 12th, 1968 to a packed court house. The main constitutional question at hand was if a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech and expression. Attorney Dan L. Johnson argued on the Tinker’s behalf, proclaiming that the students had the constitutional right, as per the 1st amendment freedom of speech and expression, to wear the black armbands as a form of symbolic speech. On the other hand, attorney Allan A. Herrick defended the school board’s actions, inciting that the prohibition of armbands was necessary to prevent and stifle any violence or disorder. The topic of discussion during the oral arguments centered largely upon whether Tinker’s protest was disruptive to the class environment. Johnson argued that the anti-Vietnam protest, although sparking some talk, was undisruptive to school, citing that there was no evidence of disruption in any of the classes. Herrick, conversely, argued that the Vietnam War was an inflammatory issue, and that armbands invoked violence, especially since a

that student or teachers may not use schools as a platform to exercise free speech and in the case

December of 1965, a group of adults and a few students of Des Moines Independent Community School District including John Tinker, Mary Beth and their friend Eckhard gathered to show they disfavor towards American involvement in the Vietnam war. Few students decided to wear black armbands to express their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam. The three Tinker students among with their friends were suspended for wearing the armbands. All of them did not return to school until after New Year. Acting through their parents, they all went to the Federal District Court to ask for injunctions but the court declined the idea, forcing them to take the case to the Supreme

The court decided that the facts do not simply support the conclusion that the School District could have forecasted a substantial disruption of or material interference with the school as a result of J.S.'s, the perpetrator, profile. Under Tinker, therefore, the School District violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when they suspended her for creating the profile.

Oliver Wendell Holmes High School took part in a community wide health fair. The school set up a booth and asked their students to participate. The teachers gave extra credit to the students that attended the health fair, and the student would have to sign in at the schools booth to verify their attendance. Susie Speeker, a student at Oliver Wendell Holmes High School, attended the fair with her family. While at the community wide health fair, Susie held up a sign which stated marijuana should be legalized for compassionate use. A fellow student that attended the same school as Susie took a picture of her holding the sign and published it in the school newspaper. The principal of the school saw the photo and suspended Susie for violating the schools policy by promoting illegal drugs at a school function. Since Susie’s suspension, she claims that she has been harassed by other students and teachers at her school. Susie claims that her grades have dropped which could result in limited college choices. As a result, Susie claims her civil rights under 42 U.S.C § 1983 were violated.

Yet, in 1999, when Serrano High School first banned the wearing of clothes with certain colors because they were feared to be "gang-related", the students had no choice but to comply. While the School Board does retain the right to censor some forms of expression because they are inappropriate in language or may cause a disruption to the learning process, the idea that students are not allowed to wear clothes because of their color begins to push the envelope. In 2003 the school board took this a step further and banned any hat with a logo other than the schools logo on it because of the prevalence of hats with inappropriate logos on them that might be gang-related or have a double-meaning. However, this reasoning was never justified with any event or occurrence that would prove these hats were becoming an issue of security for the students. Often times, the only form of expression a High School age student has is the clothing they wear, and the banning of their selection of clothing without giving justification is equivalent to restricting any other form of free speech without justification. The fact that school boards only vaguely justify their reasons for certain dress code restrictions is enough to warrant a reasoned inquiry by the students into why their speech is being suppressed.

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

“Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?”

In December of 1965, a group of Des Moines students held a meeting at 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt’s house to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They came to the decision that they would wear black armbands during the holiday season and fast on December 16 as well as New Year’s Eve. When the principals of the Des Moines school learned about the plan, they met on December 14 to create a policy stating that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, and would be suspended if they refused to do so. On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were consequently sent home. The next day, John Tinker did the same thing, and was also suspended. The students did not come back to school until after New Year’s Day, the planned end of the protest.

However, the school board didn’t approve this action and state that whoever come to school wearing black armbands would be suspend. Mary Beth arrived to school on December 16. The principal asked her to remove her armband. When she refused, she was sent home and got suspended. Even though the protest did not disrupt classes, four other students were suspended including John Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt. The school told the students they couldn’t return to school until they agreed to remove their armbands (“Tinker V. Des Moines”). Mary Beth Tinker wrote later in an essay in Peter Irons’s book The Courage of Their Convictions “We didn’t think it was going to be that big of a deal” (Mauro). Therefore, the students decided to remove their armband and retune to school after the Christmas break. The article “Tinker V. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503, 1969)” says, “the students returned to school after the Christmas break without armbands, but in protest wore black clothing for the remainder of the school year” (“Tinker V. Des Moines”). The parents of the suspended students deprecated the school action and asked for the suspensions to be revoked, but the school refused. Therefore, the Tinkers’ father filed a

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.

If the material handed out was not related to school activities or it’s curriculum then the students broke clearly stated school rules.

Over five years have passed since high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days by school principal Deborah Morse after refusing her request to take down a 14-foot banner he was displaying at a school-sanctioned event which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Born as a seemingly trivial civil lawsuit in which Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the long-awaited ruling of Morse v. Frederick has finally been released. In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled in favor of Morse and upheld the school board’s original ruling that Morse was acting within her rights and did not violate Frederick’s First Amendment rights by taking away his

The subject of student rights has caused a lot of confusion and anger for decades now. There are two different sides that everyone seems to fall into. Some people want the constitutional rights of students to be fully protected within the school. The other side believes that, as a public institution, schools should regulate what is said or done by students to protect everyone involved. This is where it gets confusing, because it is hard to draw the line between what is allowed or not. The three most interesting topics that I chose to cover are a student’s right to free speech, religion within the school and student privacy.

Prior to the landmark ruling by the United States Supreme Court, New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985), the clarity on how search and seizures applied to students in public schools were unclear. A particular case from 1969 can shed some light regarding on how the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution defines student rights in public schools. In Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733; 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), the court found that: