Meghan Ciacchella EA 7780 Case Analysis 3TINKER v.

DES MOINES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TINKER PETITIONER v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. FACTS The facts of this case included:

 Five students including John Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, Mary
Beth Tinker, Hope Tinker, and Paul Tinker wore black armbands to
school in December of 1965 to protest the Vietnam War.
 The School Board and principals enacted school board policy
declaring armbands a violation of school code of conduct
immediately prior to hearing of the proposed staged wearing of
the armbands by the five students upon hearing of the students’
scheduled protest that was conveyed to one of the petitioner’s
journalism teacher.
 The two high school students and one middle school student were
suspended and sent home upon wearing of the black armbands.
 The two elementary children were not suspended.
 The parents of the petitioners battled in the federal district court
which upheld the School Board’s policy.
 The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was deemed
“deadlocked” or “equally divided” and “affirmed without
opinion” the District Court’s previous decision.
 The court then “granted certiorari” and the case was sent to the
Supreme Court to be heard and reviewed.

The issue in TINKER v. DES MOINES case heard and reviewed by the
2. ISSUE Supreme Court was to determine whether school board policy enacted
and enforced violated the petitioners’ first amendment rights held within
the “Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” The petitioners were
seeking refrainment from discipline for the petitioners and were seeking
“nominal damages.” The Supreme Court were heard the case as the
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit were divided and granted
“certiorari” forcing it to the Supreme Court to hear the case to determine
if the School Board’s policy violated students’ freedom of speech rights.

3. RULE The rule of law in this case was “Reversed and Remanded” decisions of
lower courts 7-2, finding no evidence supporting the School Board’s
suggestion that the petitioners violated others’ rights, nor did they
demonstrate interference with other students’ education and/or
constitutional rights. The Supreme Court found the “judgment of the Des
Moines school officials” as unconstitutional (Black, 1969). In addition, the
Supreme Court did not find any evidence of the Tinker and Eckhardt
children causing a disturbance to others in the school and/or to the school
itself. The Supreme Court cited that “our Constitution does not permit
officials of the State to deny their form of expression” and thus “reversed
and remanded” (Fortas, 1969).

1|Page
 Meghan Ciacchella EA 7780 Case Analysis 3TINKER v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

4.ANLAYSIS The Majority of the case written by Justice Abe Fortas (1969) and
(MAJORITY) concurred by Justices Stewart and White found the petitioners rights of
freedom of “pure speech” to be in violation by the enacted School Board
policy in 1965.

Fortas cited numerous previous cases demonstrating students’ rights

upheld and constitutionally supported under both the First and Fourteenth
Amendments. The majority critically examined Tinker v. Des Moines citing
no apparent evidence was found to support the notion that students’
wearing of black armbands caused damage to others’ rights,
“substantially interfered” in student learning, nor was it disruptive for the
school. The majority cited the notion that the School Board sought
retribution and discipline on the Tinker and Eckhardt children out of “fear
of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands” as opposed to
actually causing a disturbance in school. The majority found this cause of
“fear” was not substantial enough to “overcome the right of freedom of
expression.

In addition, the majority stated that school officials sought punishment

through the setting of the policy as a “desire to avoid the discomfort and
upleasantness” that this act of First Amendment Rights may have stirred
rather than for an actual disturbance. The Majority concurred that even
the letter from school officials after the suspension once again refrained
from making any reference of this act being a “disruption” to student
learning. The Majority declared the School Board’s hasty policy was in
violation of the students’ Freedom of Speech and declared the Board’s
actions as one of avoidance of any controversy relating to the Vietnam
War
5. ANALYSIS The dissenting opinion disagreed with the majority’s decision of finding the
(MINORITY) School Board’s policies in regard to the black armband prohibition as
unconstitutional. The minority agreed that all people have rights and any
person should be allowed to “give speeches or engage in demonstrations
where he pleases and when he pleases,” but with certain limitation as it
happens in publicly funded places. The minority cautioned that those
publicly funded places should not push personal agendas and
furthermore, did do exactly as the school board had warned and
“diverted” attention during the school day.

6. CONCLUSION/ In the case of TINKER v. DES MOINES, the Supreme Court ruled to “reverse
DECISION and remand for further proceedings” stating that the School Board policy
enforced was in violation of the first amendment rights. For the ruling of
compensation or “relief” to be compensated, the Supreme Court
diverted this decision to the lower courts.

2|Page