Supreme Court Cases Of The ACLU: Non-Profit Education

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.

The majority opinion says that the schools did not have the right to suspend the students

"The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression."

The excuse of the school board president was, that the armband policy was aimed so it won’t cause a disturbing influence on the students. However, in the book Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court by Tony Mauro says “Students and a lawyer for the Iowa Civil Liberties Union reminded the board that other students had been allowed to wear armbands in other situations, such as to mourn the death of people killed in the civil rights movement” (Mauro151). The Supreme Court was asked to reverse the suspensions and to make it illegal to violated the freedom expression of the young youth even in schools. The lawyer argued that students should enjoy the same level of First Amendment protection like adults. Besides, the students, at Des Moines public school, protested without disturbing anyone. In Fact, the students’ protest was a silent expression of opinion by just wearing the armbands (Mauro). According to Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court “The Court decided that allowing the Tinkers to wear their armbands protesting the Vietnam conflict would not substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students. Wearing the armbands was a silent, passive expression of opinion that did not involve any disorder or disturbance, and was unlikely to cause a material and substantial disruption in the school” (Mauro 151). Also, Teachers and

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.

This Supreme Court case involved First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District involved three public school students (petitioners) in Des Moines, Iowa who were suspended from school, because they wore black armbands in protest of the government's policy in Vietnam. The petitioners sought damages and an injunction against the regulation preventing them from wearing the armbands. Their complaint was dismissed by the District Court on February 24, 1969, because the Court determined that the regulation was within the authority of the Board's power though there was no proof that the behavior had "materially and substantially" interfered with the school's ability to conduct school activities.

The School made a statement that said if anyone wears the armbands to school and that they will be suspended. The Tinker kids still showed up with the armbands leading to a suspension. The Tinker family of Course took this case to the supreme court since the armbands fall under the 1st amendment freedom of expression. The school argued that the armbands were a distraction to school activity and that they had a right to enforce the use of armbands to control the classroom environment. There was a testimony that the armbands did indeed affect the school. The armbands drew comments and students with the armbands were being made fun of for wearing them. A math teacher said he "Had his lesson period practically wrecked chiefly by disputes with Mary Beth Tinker, who wore her armband". If this is true it would be in favor of common good since the class can operate without any disturbance if they made the Tinker kids take the armbands off. The court did not rule this way and opted to protect the individual rights of the Tinkers. The court ruled that the evidence was not enough to suspend the Tinkers. Justice Abe Fortas delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority,

They claimed that the wearing of the armbands was not being disruptive and they linked it close to “pure speech” which is protected under the First Amendment . Not allowing the students to wear the armbands is taking away their First Amendment rights. The Authorities had no reason to believe that the armbands would interfere with the work of the school or disrupt anyone, however the authorities actions were made to try and avoid controversy.

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 principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the student’s plans on wearing the armbands to school. The principles decided to meet On December 14, 1965, to discuss this situation. They decided to adopt a policy that said any student that participates in wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it. If the students refused to remove the armbands, then that

The students were suspended and told not to come back unless they didn’t wear the armbands. They complied, but their parents took the case to the Supreme Court, claiming a violation of First Amendment rights, specifically freedom of speech. On February 24th, 1969, “the Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process,” ("Tinker v. Des Moines - Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Behalf of Student

Lets talk more about the Tinker case and how it affects today. Mary Beth Tinker, a 13 year old, who wore a black armband to her junior high school to protest the Vietnam War. She was promptly suspended by the school. The Supreme Court verdict says students don’t have to lose “their constitutional rights to freedom of speech

In the passage Tinker v. Des Miones Independent Community School District, they believe the students set themselves up for suspention. "While the record does not show that any of these armband students shouted, used profane language, or were violent in any manner, detailed testimony by some of them shows their armbands caused comments, warnings by other students, the poling of fun at them, and a warning

Facts: The Petitioner, Mary Beth Tinker and John F. Tinker who were students in high school of Des Moines Independent Community School District, chose to wear black armbands to school in opposition of the Vietnam War. The Respondent, Des Moines Independent Community School District, created a policy that banned wearing of black armbands to school. Any student who wore armbands to school would be asked to remove it, but if they refuse, they would be suspended until compliance with the policy. Although Mary Beth Tinker and John F. Tinker were aware of the new policy, they still executed their plan. Tinker was sent home and suspended until the end of the date of their plan. Tinker brought the case to the United States District Court, which ruled

Parents of the suspended students wanted to sue the school for violating Amendment 1, the freedom of speech. The US district court sided with the school, claiming the armbands were a distraction. Because the petitioners were not pleased with the results, the case eventually went up to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court claims the school had acted with their own individual viewpoints of the war in Vietnam.