Tinker Vs Moines 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

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 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

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.

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.

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

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.

In December of 1965, students attending Des Moines Public Schools held a meeting at Christopher Eckhardt 's house to conduct a plan to show their support for a truce in the ongoing Vietnam War. They resolved to wear black armbands during the holiday season and also to fast on December 16 and on New Years. The principals at the school received word of the plan, and on December 14, they established a policy that banned armbands in school. Anyone who refused to remove the armband at a teacher’s request would be suspended. However, this did not deter Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt, who, on December 16, wore their armbands and were sent home. John Tinker did the same thing the next day and was immediately sent home. None of them returned to school until after New Years. Their fathers then sued the schools for violating their children 's right to freedom of expression. However, the District Court dismissed the case, and the US Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, because of this, the families appealed to the Supreme Court.

Later, on the Tinkers' and Eckhardt's parents sued the district for violating their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The U.S. District Court of the Southern State of Iowa argued that the black armbands the students were wearing would cause a disruption in the classroom and distract other students. Allan Herrick, the lawyer for the district, said that limited speech should be allowed if said speech could lead to "violence, disorder, and disruption. The students’ lawyer, Dan Johnston, countered by statingthat the district had previously allowed other kinds of political speech occur and that no disruption was caused because of it. In the end the school board failed to prove that the armbands would do as they said they would, and so on February 24, 1969, the court announced that it sided with Tinker and company with a 5-person lead. It was 7-2. The court argued that the armbands symbolized pure speech and that it was completely different from the actions of the people wearing them, and because that just because they were students on school property didn't mean that they lost their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Justice Hugo Black wrote a dissent saying that the armbands did in fact disrupt

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

Engle v Vitale discussed the practice of religion in schools. Before the case, many schools made it necessary to say prayers, read from the bible, and practice Christianity. The case addressed the issue and marked prayer in school unconstitutional.

In December 1965 a few students in Des Moines planned to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and they planned to fast on December 16th and New Year’s Eve to support a truce in the Vietnam War. The principal and other school officials learned that the students hatched this plan and immediately adopted a no armband policy and students would be suspended if they wore armbands. On December 16th Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day John Tinker wore his armband to school and the same result occurred. They were suspended until they wouldn’t wear the armbands anymore. The students sued for violating their first amendment right of free speech. How should individual rights and the common good be balanced when they come into conflict? The common good should be put before individual rights because we have to think of the big picture not this little tiny problem. I think the school was wrong to censor the student’s free speech because they didn’t cause a substantial disruption of education.

The case I chose was the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines case, where the key arguments discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court were regarding student rights and freedom of speech. I chose this case because it was the only case in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students and not the school. This case was about students who organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War. They planned to wear black armbands to school in order to protest the fighting. However, the principal found out and told the students they would be suspended if they wore the armbands. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the students because they believed that the armbands weren't truly disruptive, therefore were protected by the First Amendment. Students’ free speech

“Tinker vs. Des Moines” is a case where two citizens expressed their rights by wearing black armbands to school to protest against involvement in the Vietnam

Ever since Engel v. Vitale, people have been upset that God has been kicked out of the classroom. Engle v. Vitale was a landmark Supreme Court case, in which it was ruled that the public school could not be started or concluded with a formal