Tinker Vs. Des Moines Case

District court after the ACLU agreed to help them. The District court upheld the school’s decision so the Tinkers took it to the U.S Court of appeals. This time the vote was a tie which allowed the U.S District Court’s decision to continue to stand. They brought it all the way to the Supreme Court Their case was heard and argued on November 12 in the year 1968 in the Supreme Court. The Courts decision, seven to two, ruled that the school board would have to provide evidence that the student’s actions were disrupting the school and hindering the faculty’s ability to provide all the students with

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.

Background: 1965 three students from Des Moines, Iowa (15 year old John Tinker; his sister, 13 year Mary Beth Tinker; and a friend, 16 year old Christopher Eckhardt), opposing the Vietnam War came up with a plan to wear black arm bands to their respective schools. The arm bands were to serve the purposes of symbolizing a protest against the Vietnam War. School officials got wind of the children’s protest plans and created a policy that if student showed up at school wearing black bands would be suspended and unable to return to school until they agreed to follow the “no black arm band” policy. All three children still chose to wear the black arm bands to school and all three were suspended from school.

Tinker v. Des Moines was a case arguing over whether the students were allowed to peacefully protest the Vietnam war in schools by wearing a black arm band with a peace sign on it. The Supreme court decided that they were allowed to peacefully protest because it didn't hinder the students for learning and it didn't lead to criminal activity. This case was one of the most important cases in US history because it was a stepping stone for students to express themselves freely in schools.

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,

Today we’re here to discuss the argument of Tinker vs Des Moine, and why this was a violation of their basic rights.

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

Truly, I don’t know anything about this court but I did read the website of what happened but yet somehow the Tinkers won in the court case mainly because the school did not lay any good arguments on the table.

The famous Supreme Court case, Tinker vs. Des Moines, was one the swept the nation. It was a highly debatable, controversial, substantial, and captivating case, resulting in it discussion across America. The case pinned two teens from the Tinker family, alongside one of their friends, against the school board of Des Moines, Iowa. The teenagers were suspended from their school for wearing armbands to protest the government’s policy in Vietnam. The case, which started in lower court systems, was ruled in favor in the teenagers in the Supreme Court, however the case was ruled in the opposite direction in the courts that the case passed through before. The stronger argument, the majority opinion, stated the constitutional facts, it stated that the student’s actions were passive and protected under the First Amendment; however the dissent argued that the behavior of the students was disruptive by distracting the other pupils of the classroom.

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

The court determined the speech occurred on campus because the accessed the site at school, showed it to fellow students and informed other students of the site. “The court decided that School officials could punish Justin Swindler through the Fraser and Tinkler standards.”(Hudson 12) The courts emphasize that the school could punish Justin Swindler through Fraser or Tinker standards. “...Fraser because the website was negative and highly offensive.’ ‘...Tinker because the website caused a substantial disruption of school activities.(Hudson 12) The Court emphasizes that Justin Swidler could be punished by the school under Fraser or Tinker law. So in conclusion the court cans are bias to both the school and the

There are four cases that criticized the ruling of Tinker v. Des Moines , 191 cases that were distinguished, meaning they tried to use Tinker v. Des Moines as their precedent but the court ruled in unrelated, and then 287 cases which followed the ruling of Tinker v. Des

In this perspective, he was right. In cutting edge times, the Court had allowed wide scope to free discourse in cases including the banner. In Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), the Court upset a California conviction in view of the presentation of a red (Comrade) banner. In West Virginia Leading body of Training of Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the Main Revision was held to block requiring school kids to salute the American banner. In Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974), the conviction of a Vietnam War dissident for wearing a little American banner in the seat of his pants under a Massachusetts law treating so as to preclude befouling of the banner it "derisively" was turned around by the Court because the law was illegally unclear. In Spence v. Washington, the conviction of an against Vietnam War understudy under a Washington banner contamination law who suspended the banner from his room upside down was struck down, however the Court was mindful so as to note at p. 414-415 that "Appealing party . . . did not forever distort the banner nor crush it." In Road v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969), the conviction of an occupant of New York City, who smoldered an American signal additionally said "we needn't bother with no banner," in challenge against the shooting of social equality dissident James Meredith, under a New York City correctional law was struck down in light

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

The issue was students not having a freedom of speech and rights in school. At a public school in Des Moines, iowa students organized a silent protest against the vietnam war. Students planned on wearing black armbands to school, but they were told by the principle if they did they would be suspended. Even though the students were warned they wore them to school anyways and got suspended. While the students were being suspended their parents went and sued the school, because they had violated their children's freedom of speech. The United States district court ruled that wearing these armbands to school could be disrupting to the process of learning. The students appealed the ruling to the united states court of appeals but the case was lost,