Tinker v. Des Moines

Background

Students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa, planned to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The goal was for it to be silent and non-disruptive, but still be political and hold meaning. However, school officials found out before it was planned, and banned students from wearing armbands, claiming they could cause disruption. Despite this action by the school, students such as Mary Beth Tinker and John Tinker still wore them. Due to this they were suspended. The students and their families challenged the school, saying that it was a limitation of their constitutional rights under the First Amendment.

The Case

Through their parents, the Tinker students filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Des Moines Independent Community School District. First, the district court ruled in favor of the school district, claiming; schools have the authority to act prior to disruption occurring. They claimed it was a preventative and not oppressive action. The students then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This resulted in a 4-4 tie, meaning no precedent was set at the appellate level, or that the lower court's decision in favor of the school inherently also applied to this case in the Court of Appeals. The students, following this, took the case of Tinker v. Des Moines to the Supreme Court.

Debates from each side

In this case, Tinker, representing the students, believed that wearing armbands had no disruption on the learning within school. They argued that the school, by suspending them for this action, had violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression. They held that this act of protest, despite being political, was their constitutional right. The Des Moines school district in this case, opposingly argued that they were simply anticipating disruption, and that there was no violation of rights as they had created the rule before the students actually wore the armbands. They continued to claim that it was a preventative measure, and not oppressive towards the students.

Verdict

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the school’s actions were unconstitutional, ruling in favor of Tinker. The court stated that students and teachers cannot be deprived of their constitutional rights simply because they step through the schoolhouse gate. The Court held the position that the school could not take action to prohibit this expression solely based on the idea that the armbands might disrupt the school environment, without any factual reasoning. It was found that school officials did not have the right or authority to ban and punish a silent and passive act of expression of opinion, without it leading to any disorder or disturbance within the school.

Legacy

This case provides important precedent as far as disruption within schools, and how that may be dictated. It provided the “substantial disruption” standard, which acts as a legal standard for what public schools may restrict based on the disruption an action is deemed to cause. Public schools and state-run institutions may only restrict speech if they show reasonable cause of material and substantial disruption. Despite this, this precedent is vague, and allows much room for interpretation. This has led to later cases such as Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier and Morse v. Frederick to carve out exceptions through ambiguity within the substantial disruption standard.