Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969)
Rule of Law:
Public school officials may not prohibit student expression under the First Amendment unless they can show that the expression would materially and substantially interfere with the discipline and operation of the school. Mere apprehension of a disturbance is not a sufficient basis to curtail students' free speech rights.
Facts:
- In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, including John F. Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt, planned to wear black armbands to their public schools to protest the Vietnam War.
- The principals of the Des Moines schools learned of the plan and, on December 14, 1965, created a policy specifically prohibiting the wearing of armbands.
- The policy stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, and refusal would result in suspension until the student returned without it.
- The students were aware of this new policy before their protest.
- On December 16 and 17, John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt wore black armbands to their schools.
- They refused to remove the armbands when asked by school officials.
- Consequently, the students were suspended from school.
- The students did not return to school until after New Year's Day, when their planned protest period had ended.
Procedural Posture:
- The students, through their fathers, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against the school officials.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint, upholding the school's policy as a reasonable measure to prevent disturbances.
- The students, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals sat en banc and was equally divided, which had the effect of affirming the District Court's decision in favor of the school officials, the appellees.
- The students then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school's prohibition against students wearing black armbands in symbolic, non-disruptive protest of the Vietnam War violate the students' freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Fortas
Yes. The prohibition against wearing armbands in this case is an unconstitutional violation of the students' First Amendment rights. Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. The wearing of armbands was a silent, passive expression of a political opinion, akin to 'pure speech,' and there was no evidence that it caused any disruption or interference with the educational environment. For a school to justify suppressing speech, it must demonstrate facts that might reasonably lead school authorities to forecast a substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities; an undifferentiated fear of disturbance is insufficient.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. While the school's action was unconstitutional, the Court should not assume that the First Amendment rights of children are co-extensive with those of adults. A state may permissibly determine that children are not possessed of the full capacity for individual choice which is the presupposition of First Amendment guarantees in certain delineated areas.
Concurring - Mr. Justice White
Yes. The Court correctly recognizes the distinction between communication by words and communication by conduct that impinges on a valid state interest. This concurrence serves to note that distinction and to express that not all reasoning from the precedent case of Burnside v. Byars is fully subscribed to.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
No. The school's prohibition does not violate the First Amendment. The Court's decision ushers in a new era of permissiveness fostered by the judiciary, transferring control of schools from elected officials to students. The armbands did, in fact, distract students from their classwork by introducing a highly emotional subject. Public schools are not the proper forum for political demonstrations, and this holding will encourage students to defy school orders, undermining the discipline necessary for education.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. The school's prohibition does not violate the First Amendment. School officials should be granted wide authority to maintain order and discipline. The burden should be on the complaining students to show that the school's action was motivated by something other than legitimate school concerns. As there is no evidence here that impugns the good faith of the school officials, their judgment should be upheld.
Analysis:
Tinker v. Des Moines is a foundational case for students' rights, establishing that students possess First Amendment free speech rights in public schools. It created the 'Tinker Test,' or the 'substantial disruption' standard, which requires school administrators to have evidence of a material and substantial disruption before censoring student expression. This decision fundamentally shifted the balance of power in schools, rejecting the notion that schools could act 'in loco parentis' with absolute authority and instead treating students as 'persons' under the Constitution. The test remains the primary framework for analyzing student speech cases, though its application has been narrowed by subsequent cases involving vulgar, school-sponsored, or drug-related speech.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"