QUESTION:

1. TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731, 49 O.O.2d 222 CONCURRING CONCURRING DISSENTED CONCURRING DISSENTED CONCURRING CONCURRING CONCURRING OPINION MARSHALL WARREN HARLAN BRENNAN STEWART FORTAS BLACK DOUGLAS WHITE FACTS: Siblings John Tinker, 15 years old, Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and classmate Christopher Echardt, 16 years old, decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during the Christmas holiday. The administration feared that the armbands would provoke disturbances. The administration of the Des Moines school district decided that all students wearing armbands should be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the students wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day. • The United States Supreme Court held the opinion that in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, the decision or holding by the District and Appellate Courts should be reversed and remanded. First, the First Amendment rights, specifically the Free Speech Clause, does not stop at the school doorstep and students are deemed ‘persons’ as expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment. • Secondly, the administration can not prohibit the wearing of armbands because a feared disruption in the school when wearing armbands is silent, passive observance. It is an expression of protest and is no way a hindrance to the educational setting of the school. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 89 S. Ct. 733 U.S. Iowa February 24, 1969 Analysis • “By wearing armbands, the petitioners were not disruptive, and did not impinge upon the rights of others at the school. Because of this, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” • “First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, but subject to the characteristics of a school environment.” • “A prohibition against expression, without any evidence that the prohibition is necessary to avoid substantial interference with in the school, discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.” Implications for Future Cases: The Tinker Standard is applied to many cases after the historical decision and it is measured by the “material and substantial disruption” it can cause in a school. Cases such as Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier or New Jersey v. T.L.O. have had the Tinker Standard applied. Also the Tinker Standard judges the reasonableness of the particular incident that it needs to be restrained by an administrator. Ultimately, through the Tinker Standard, the First Amendment rights of a student are not the same as their adult counterparts due to the characteristics of the school environment and the rights of all “persons” to equal protection under the law, according to the Fourteenth Amendment. QUESTION: “Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment or the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?” 383 F. 2d 988 8th Circuit (Iowa) November 3, 1967 APPELLATE COURT • The Court of Appeals, affirmed the District decision but were equally divided. A complaint was filed by the student petitioners to the District Court of the United States, through their fathers. The complaint filed prayed for an injunction restricting the school officials and the members of the board of directors of the school district from disciplining the petitioners, and it sought nominal damages. An evidentiary hearing in the District Court dismissed the complaint. The District Court upheld the constitutionality of the school authorities' action on the ground that it was reasonable in order to prevent disturbance of school discipline. The court also declined to follow the Fifth Circuit's holding in a similar case that the wearing of symbols like the armbands cannot be prohibited unless it interferes with the discipline of the school. DISTRICT COURT 258 F. Supp. 971 S.D. Iowa September 1, 1966 Analysis • The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities.