The Supreme Court Case Tinker V. Des Moines

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 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

John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Echardt all attended the same public school. They decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. They were asked by the school to remove the armbands but the kids refused to do so. This resulted in the suspension of all three students. Through their guardians, the scholars sued the school region for infringing the scholar’s right of expression and looked for a directive to keep the school from suspending them. The Tinkers took to court. The Tinkers claimed that they were suspended for essentially expressing their views on the war. They thought this move made by the school

Tinker v. Des Moines case involves two main students. Others students were also involved. The two main student’s names were “John and Mary Beth Tinker (Landmark Cases).” They were from Des Moines, Iowa and this case took place between the years 1965-1969 (Landmark Cases).” The problem with this case was there form of protest. “They wore black armbands to their public school as a symbol of protest against American involvement in the Vietnam War (Landmark Cases).” When their school found out about what they were doing they had an issue with it. “When school authorities asked that the Tinkers remove their armbands, they refused and were subsequently suspended (Landmark

John and Mary Beth Tinker and their friend Chris Eckhardt wore black armbands to school in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest the war in Vietnam. The student refused to take off armbands and then were suspended. Parent sued the school and said it was a violation of their First Amendment. On the ruling the Supreme Court sided with the students said As long as an act of expression doesn't disrupt class work or school activities or invade the rights of others, it's acceptable.

In the case Tinker V. Des Moines a group of adults and students in Des Moines decided that in protest of the Vietnam war they would wear black armbands during school. Although the protest was silent, the school feared the controversy that this would cause and implemented a new policy that forbid students to wear armbands or they would face suspension. When the day came the students were asked to remove the bands and they refused, they were suspended and asked to not return until they removed the armbands. The parents of the students decided to sue the school because they believed the schools action went against the first amendment. The supreme court came to a conclusion after analysing the majority opinion

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

When supreme court was deciding on the case of Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) there were two previous cases that were cited which where Tinker v. Des Moines Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). In the supreme court case between the Des Moines school district and a student by the name of Mary Tinker, both the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment were utilized as a means to relieve a dispute of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech. Three students that were attending a public school in Des Moines wore black armbands around their biceps as a peaceful protest against the Vietnam war. The students were suspended from school and through the appeals process, this case

In the case Tinker v. Des Moines, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. The supreme court has drawn a conclusion that the suspension of the three pupils was illegal. In the review of the case, the supreme list several main points to justify the Protest of pupils.

The students in Tinker were wearing black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 504 (1969). School officials suspended students when they refused to remove the bands because they believed they would provoke classroom disruptions and violence, though none had occurred at that point. Id. The Supreme Court held in Tinker that the schools could not prohibit the expression of an unpopular opinion unless such prohibition “is necessary to avoid substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline.” Id. at 511. The students in Tailor by contrast were protesting the United States’ response to 9/11 and began throwing paper and water bottles around the classroom during their protest.

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

A group of friends met at 16 year old Christopher Eckhardt’s house to discuss their protest of the Vietnam war. The children wanted the Vietnam to end with a truce, and planned on peacefully protesting the United States’ involvement. They planned on wearing black armbands around the Christmas holiday, and planned on not eating any food on December 16th, and christmas eve. However, when the school district found out, they had an emergency meeting on December 14th. The school board decided to suspend anyone that didn’t take their wristbands off. On the first day, two children were suspended, and a third student on the second day. The parents sued the school for violating the student’s rights, and wanted to make sure their children weren’t punished. The Supreme Court debated whether or not the school’s prohibition against wearing armbands in public schools, as a form of protest, violates the student’s freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment. Seven justices believed that the school district represented pure speech that is separate from the actions of those participating in the protest. The Court declared that students do not lose their rights when they walk onto school property. The Court also decided that school districts need to be able to prove that the actions interfered with the school’s operation in order to take away student’s freedom of speech. In this case, the

Expression, one of the core freedoms expressed in our Bill of Rights, carries many forms. The case of Margery Washington and David Schultz versus the Chicago District 299 school board concerns two high-school students who chose to express their convictions by each wearing a hoodie and button to school in support of Trayvon Martin and in protest of controversy surrounding his death, the two students were asked by the school to remove them, citing a violation of the school dress code. After two days suspension, the students complied and removed the articles, but have petitioned their way to the Supreme Court. Given the invalidity of the punishment laid upon the students’, along with violation of the students’ First Amendment rights, precedent

Des Moines Independent Community School District is the single most influential U.S. Supreme court case on school free speech. It was noted from this case that: “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate.” The 1969 case involved Iowa students and their rights to wear black armbands in school to symbolically protest against the Vietnam War. In this case the court concluded that wearing armbands is a form of symbolic speech “akin to pure speech” and that the act was a “non-disruptive, passive expression of a political viewpoint”. Furthermore, the court went on to say “that a fundamental right of freedom of expression cannot be squelched due to a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompanies an unpopular

There were people in the Supreme Court who thought they should not wear the arm bands. They thought it would distract the kids from learning. The people in the Supreme Court thought wearing the arm bands would cause a commotion or convict between the students and teachers.