Tinker V. Des Moines Schools Case Study

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

as being the first case to protect students ' First Amendment rights at school. By ruling that it was

Significance: The case Tinker v Des Moines broadens the interpretation of student’s First Amendment rights. The students do not shed their First Amendment right when they enter school grounds. Thus extending their right of free speech, press, etc. in their school. They have the ability to freely speak about issues in their schools, etc. However, their rights are still limited in a way their speech may not disturb the learning of

Justice Hugo L. Black argued against and gave a dissenting opinion from the majority. He argued the school had a right to maintain order and those armbands distracted students from schoolwork, ultimately detracting the abilities of school officials to perform duties. Additionally, concurring opinions arose from Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Byron R. White. Potter argued that students are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of the First Amendment rights, and White argued that distinction between communicated words and communicated actions are what drives the majority opinion (“Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District:”). In the “Tinker v. Des Moines School District” article it is written that Justice Abe Fortas famously wrote that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” giving way to students’ First Amendment rights in the school place (“Tinker v. Des Moines School District:”). In order for a student to lose such right, the school district would now have to prove this act interfered with other students, an issue that begins to surface throughout the remaining 20th

The hearing took place on November 12,1969. During the hearing, leading attorney for the Tinkers, Dan Johnston, argued that the action of the students was censored under the First Amendment and their symbolic speech caused no disturbance. On the other hand, the school argued that they should have the duty to enforce and maintain order and all discretion should be left at the hands of the school and not the court (Anker 379). Around the same time, another case with the same problem arose. In the Burnside v. Byars case, there was a group of black students that attended an all-black public school in Philadelphia, Mississippi. To protest the racial segregation happening in their state, they wore freedom buttons. About thirty of the students who wore the buttons were suspended. The Court of Appeals, in the fifth circuit, said that the students have free speech rights and in order for the school to ban the buttons, the school must have evidence of disruption; otherwise, it is considered arbitrary and unreasonable and cannot be sustained (“Tinker…1969”). In the ruling of the Burnside v. Byars case, the Court of Appeals stated that in order for the school to interfere with students’ free rights, they must have evidence that it was interfering with school orders. However, Judge Stephenson, judge in the United States Court or Appeals, claimed that schools should not be limited to how they restrict

In the Emerson v. Board of Education Case New Jersey passed a law authorizing local school boards to provide transportation of children to and from school. The Board of Education of Ewing Township, following this law, authorized reimbursement to parents of money spent by their children on public buses. However, Arch Everson, a resident and taxpayer in the Ewing Township school district, learned that a reimbursement was going to parents who sent their children to Catholic schools as well. He then claimed that this money supported religion and violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. Ultimately, the court ruled that the new law was not in violation of the establishment clause.

These errors may have been as a result of SRO being new and not being familiar with school protocol. Also, according to the established due process requirements from Goss v. Lopez (1975), since Truant continued to deny the charges, he should have been able to explain the evidence and given the opportunity to present his version of the events. He was given the opportunity to explain what happened in class, but not for testing positive on the drug test. By his statement it is not clear if he was told that he tested positive for amphetamines. If he does have a diagnosis of ADHD and taking medication, that would explain the positive result of the urine sample. But, since this conversation has not taken place with his parents, this issue remains in question. Since he did indeed test positive this is in violation of Offense #3 (Narcotics, Alcoholic Beverages, and Stimulant Drugs – A student shall not be under the influence of any

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) defined that students do not lose their Constitutional rights when they enter the school. This case has helped shape school and district policies and regulations since it was handed down, including the policies of Regional School Unit #40. Other cases, such as Bethel v. Fraser (1986), have clarified that schools can punish lewd speech and language. In more recent times, several Circuit Court decisions have looked at speech on social media written outside of school, but are later brought into school through the Internet. In general, those decisions have upheld that the speech must cause a substantial disruption, or be likely to do so, for an administrator to punish the

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

In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, two Supreme Court justices, Abe Fortas and Hugo Black, give their testimony through writing, in which, Fortas agues in favor of the students and gives valid evidence in order to prove his case. However, Black, while he leans in favor of the schools focuses mainly on his opinion that the decision should be left to the school officials and not the courts.

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 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 case of Tinker v. Des Moines revolved around American's discontent for the actions the country was taking overseas in Vietnam. In 1965 in protest against the war, John and Mary Beth Tinker "wore black armbands to their public school as a symbol of protest against American involvement in the Vietnam War" (StreetLaw Inc. 1). The two were young students at a local high school. Their protest was noticed by the authorities of their school, who then promptly demanded that the two remove their armbands. This demand was denied, and the Tinkers refused to do so, claiming that it was their right to free speech that was provided to them by the Bill of Rights. As a result the two were suspended from their school (StreetLaw Inc. 1). Yet, the Tinkers were unwilling to accept the punishment, and saw the act as a violation of their First Amendment rights. They sought legal action and took the case all the way to the Supreme Court in 1968.

In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to

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.