Case Review Assignment
Case Review Assignment
Taylor Salvatore
EDAS747 Advanced Educational Law
Liberty University
January 21, 2024
Case Review Assignment
Tinker v. DesMoines Independent Community School District, 393 US 503 (1969)
I. Case Facts
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Disctruct (1969) was a US
Supreme Court case that involved the constitutional rights of students in public schools.
The case revolved around the suspension of 3 public school students, John Tinker, Mary
Beth TInker, and Christopher Eckhardt. In December of 1965, the three students chose to
wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and express their opposition
to the global conflict. However, the Des Moines School District had a policy that
prohibits the wearing of armbands to prevent disruption of learning. The three students
were aware of this policy (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District,
393 U.S. 503, 1969).
As a result, the school suspended the three students for violating school policy
despite their protest being peaceful and not causing any type of disruption to learning.
After being suspended, the students' families filed a lawsuit against the school district for
violating the students’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. The case eventually
made its way to the Supreme Court where in a 7-2 decision the Court ruled in favor of the
students (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503,
1969).
II. Major Issues of the Case
Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) addressed
several major constitutional issues related to the rights of students in public schools. The central
issue of the case was Freedom of Speech. The court needed to determine the extent to which
students could express their opinions in school without infringing on the authority of the school.
Case Review Assignment
Symbolic speech was another issue addressed in this case (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 1969). The students wore black armbands to express
an opinion, the court needed to decide whether or not symbolic expression was protected under
the First Amendment the way verbal and written expression was. School Authority was another
major issue in the case. The contents of the case questions the correct balance between the
authority of a school to maintain order in comparison to the individual rights of students (Tinker
v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 1969). Specifically, in this
scenario, the school’s interest in preventing disruption versus the students’ right to free speech.
The court needed to establish a standard to determine when student speech could be restricted
based on the potential for disruption. The Court’s decision also had to address the limits on the
First Amendment rights of students in the school setting. In order to maintain a safe learning
environment, the students had limitations to their First Amendment rights. Overall, the case
played a major role in defining what the constitutional rights are of students in public schools
(Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 1969).
III. Rationale
The rationale for Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
was provided by Justice Abe Fortas who wrote the majority opinion. The United States Supreme
Court agreed that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or
expression at the schoolhouse gate” ((Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
District, 393 U.S. 503, 1969). The Court reasoned that the First Amendment protects the
freedom of speech including students even while on school grounds. The Court also recognized
that symbolic speech was a legitimate expression and a protected expression under the First
Amendment Right.
Case Review Assignment
Absences of disruption played a major role in the Supreme Court’s decision, emphasizing
that the school could only restrict speech if it posed a significant disruption to the school’s
operations, wearing black armbands did not disrupt student learning or school operations (Tinker
v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 1969). The Court reasoned
that suppressing student expression must be based on valid reasons related to the educational
mission of the school district and not just mere disagreement of the content of the speech. In
addition, the Court established the “Tinker Test” which uses the need for a reasonable forecast of
disruption as the basis for restricting student expression in school (Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 1969).
IV. Holdings from the Judges
In the case, the Supreme Court issued a majority opinion along with concurring and
dissenting opinions. The majority, 7-2, ruled in favor of the students and their parents. The
majority felt that the actions of the school in disciplining the students violated the students First
Amendment rights to freedom of speech (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
District, 393 U.S. 503, 1969). The students and parents won the Supreme Court case with
majority decisions by Justices W. Douglas, T. Marshall, W. Brennan, E, Warren, and A. Fortas.
Justice H. Black concurred but added that there needed to be a broader interpretation of the First
Amendment. The two dissenters were Black himself who expressed concerns about the Court’s
involvement in the regulation of school activities and policies and Justice B. White who argued
that the school’s actions were justified in order to maintain the school environment (Tinker v.
Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 1969).
V. Personal Reaction
Case Review Assignment
As an educator, especially one in the social studies department, I find myself in favor of
the ruling that protects students’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. The decision
reflects that students just like any other citizens have the right to express their opinions and
beliefs even in a school setting. A major part of a history curriculum is the ability for students to
debate topics freely and openly. This cannot be done if they are in fear of punishment should
they express themselves on any hot button topics. To me, the recognition of symbolic speech is
especially significant as it shows that students can convey powerful messages through non-verbal
means such as walkouts and or wearing colors for a cause. This allows them to peacefully voice
their concerns about a topic.
Pickering vs Board of Education, 391 US 563 (1968)
I. Case Facts
Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) is another First Amendment rights case
that involves public employees, specifically a teacher. Marvin Pickering was a high
school teacher in Illinois who was employed by the Board of Education. Pickering wrote
to a local newspaper expressing concern about how the school district had allocated funds
between educational and athletic programs. In this letter to the paper, he criticized the
school board’s decisions and their prioritization of athletic programs over academic
needs. He also argued that the choices made by the school’s board of education were not
made in the best interest of the school’s students and community (Pickering v. Board of
Education of Township High School District 205, Will County).
The school board fired Pickering from his teaching position with the explanation
that the letter was detrimental to the efficient operation of the school district. Pickering
filed a lawsuit to challenge his dismissal, arguing that it violated his First Amendment
Case Review Assignment
rights to freedom of speech as his letter addressed matters of public concern and was
therefore protected speech. The trial court along with the Illinois Appellate Court both
ruled in favor of the school board and the school district’s right to control and manage its
employees. However, the case reached the United States Supreme Court where the
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pickering (Pickering v. Board of Education of Township
High School District 205, Will County). The Supreme Court reasoned that public
employees, including teachers, do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they
enter public service. The Court created a two-step balancing test to determine whether a
public employee’s speech is protected (Pickering v. Board of Education of Township
High School District 205, Will County).
II. Major Issues
The Pickering v Board of Education case addressed several major issues related to
the First Amendment rights of employees, especially public school teachers. The central
issue in the case was whether a public school teacher retains First Amendment rights to
freedom of speech when expressing opinions of public concern. The Supreme Court had
to find the balance between the government’s interest in maintaining an efficient
workplace and an individuals’ right to engage in protected speech. This case also raised
the question of how to weigh the interest of public employees when it comes to
expressing opinions on matters of public concern against the interest of the employer
when it comes to maintaining an orderly and efficient workplace.
The goal of the Court was to find a balance and create the standard (Pickering v.
Board of Education of Township High School District 205, Will County). The Supreme
Court also considered whether the letter had a detrimental impact on the efficient
Case Review Assignment
operation of the school and whether or not the school board dismissed Pickering based on
the perceived disruption caused by his public criticism. From here, the Court created a
balancing test to determine the constitutionality of a public employee’s dismissal based
on their speech. This test has two steps: the first to determine whether the speech
addresses a matter of public concern and the second being whether the employee’s
interest in the speech outweighs the employer’s interest in maintaining an orderly
workplace (Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, Will
County).
III. Rationale
The rationale for this case was outlined in the majority opinion which was written by
Justice Thurgood Marshall. The Court’s decision was based on the consideration of the balance
between a public employee’s First Amendment rights and the government employer’s interest in
maintaining an orderly workplace (Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School
District 205, Will County). The Supreme Court acknowledged that public employees, including
teachers, do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when entering public service. Public
employees maintain the right to speak on matters of public concern (Pickering v. Board of
Education of Township High School District 205, Will County).
Using the two-step balancing test that the Supreme Court established, they determined
the constitutionality of a public employee’s dismissal when based on their speech. If the speech
in question does not address a matter of public concern, it may not be protected fully by the First
Amendment. If the speech is addressing a matter of public concern, the Court balances the
employee’s interest in the speech against the employer’s interest in maintaining an efficient
workplace (Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, Will
Case Review Assignment
County). The Supreme Court found that the letter to the newspaper addressed a matter of public
concern with the nature of the speech being deemed significant.in this determination. The
Supreme Court then concluded that the public had an interest in hearing the opinions of public
employees on matters of public concern (Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High
School District 205, Will County). The Supreme Court ruled that Pickering’s termination was
unconstitutional as the public interest in his speech on matters of public concern outweighed the
school board’s interest in maintaining discipline.
IV. Holdings from the Judges
In Pickering v Board of Education, the Supreme Court issued a majority opinion along
with concurring and dissenting opinions. The majority opinion, 8-1, held that Pickering’s
termination by the Board of Education was unconstitutional. This was determined through the
Supreme Court’s two-step balancing test (Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High
School District 205, Will County). Justice Hugo Black wrote a separate concurring opinion
stating that the government should not have the power to discipline or dismiss public employees
for speech on matters of public concern. Justice John Marshall Harlan II was the only one who
dissented. He expressed concerns about the Court’s interference with a school board’s authority
to manage their employees (Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District
205, Will County). Harlan viewed the decision would hamper a school board’s ability to manage
its employees (Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, Will
County).
V. Personal Reaction
Reflecting on the Pickering v. Board of Education case, I am in favor of the outcome.
The decision resonates with the principles of free speech along with the essential role that
Case Review Assignment
educators play when it comes to contributing to public discourse on matters of significant public
concern. As a teacher, I always find myself in conversations with colleagues about how it often
feels like administration and board of education members forget what its like to be in a
classroom with the decisions they often make. Having the ability to discuss our concerns without
fear of termination are important to fostering a democratic society.
The Supreme Court’s recognition that as an educator, I do not forfeit my rights to
freedom of speech when I enter my classroom is extremely important. As a history teacher, this
case reinforces the idea that not only are teachers transmitters of knowledge but also active
participants in civic engagement, and this is something that needs to be modeled for students if
they are to become productive members of their community and society.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954)
I. Case Facts
Brown v Board of Education addressed the issue of racial segregation in public schools.
In the early 1950s, racial segregation was the norm in public schools across the United States.
Under a policy of “separate but equal” established by the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, it
allowed for racially segregated facilities as long as the facilities were equal in quality. Brown v.
The Board of Education is actually composed of several cases from different states. These states
include Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware (Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 1954).
The cases were brought by African American families on behalf of their children who
were denied admission to public schools as these public schools were designated for white
Case Review Assignment
children. The plaintiffs’ legal team was led by Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP. The aim
was to challenge the constitutionality of racial segregation in public schools. Originally, the
cases were heard at the district court level. In each case, the district courts referred to the
precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling in favor of racial segregation in public schools.
These cases were then consolidated and appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The case
focused on the question of whether or not segregation based on race violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347
U.S. 483, 1954). The court case was followed up with a second opinion known as Brown II
(1955) which outlined the requirement for desegregation.
II. Major Issues of the Case
Brown v. Board of Education addressed several major issues in relation to racial
segregation in public schools. The central issue in Brown was whether state laws that mandated
racial segregation were constitutional despite the “separate but equal” doctrine set by Plessy v.
Ferguson and whether this segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The plaintiffs sought to overturn the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson. The case
considered the psychological and educational impact that racial segregation had on African
American students. It was argued that segregation inherently created a sense of inferiority
amongst minority children, which violated their rights to equal protection under the law (Brown
v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 1954). Social science evidence was used to
demonstrate the harmful effects of segregation on minority children as well as expert witness
testimony provided by psychologists and sociologists who discussed the negative impact of
segregation on education experiences and psychological well-being of African American
students (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 1954).
Case Review Assignment
III. Rationale
The rationale for the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision was outlined in the
unanimous opinion which was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Court’s rationale was
based on the reexamination of the constitutional principles that surround racial segregation in
public education. The court felt that the doctrine of “separate but equal” created by Plessy v.
Ferguson in 1896 did not apply to public education as racial segregation in public schools was
unequal and that separate facilities for black and white students could not be equal (Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 1954). The Court also concluded that state laws
requiring racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law
to all citizens. The Supreme Court found segregating students by race denied minority students
this right. The Supreme Court also emphasized the psychological and sociological evidence that
was presented during this case.
Racial segregation in schools had a detrimental effect on the educational experiences and
well-being of minority students. The Supreme Court stated that segregation created a feeling of
inferiority amongst minority children which is inconsistent with the equal protection guaranteed
to them by the Constitution. The Supreme Court used this ruling to explicitly overturn the
precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson which had upheld separate facilities for black and white
races (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 1954).
The Supreme Court acknowledged the need for immediate desegregation of public
schools, using the phrase “with all deliberate speed”. The Court also reasoned that its decisions
was influenced by changing societal attitudes and the growing opinion leaning against racial
segregation.
Case Review Assignment
IV. Holdings from the Judges
In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision
for the desegregation of public schools. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the
court. There were no dissenting opinions presented. The Supreme Court held that state laws
requiring racial segregation in public schools were unconstitutional, further rejecting the doctrine
of “separate but equal” established in Plessy v. Ferguson in the context of public education
(Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 1954).
The Supreme Court also found that racial segregation in public education violated the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees equal treatment under the
law and prohibits the states from denying any person in their jurisdiction with equal protection.
Separating students based on race in public schools was inherently unequal as to the Supreme
Court, separate educational facilities could never truly be equal (Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 1954). The Supreme Court found that “in the field of public education the
doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place” which marked a shift towards a more equal and
integrated society (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 1954). With the
overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court recognized the need for the immediate and effective
desegregation of public schools. This acknowledged the influence of the changing societal
attitudes towards racial segregation. The Supreme Court unanimously siding with Brown
showed the Court as unified against racial segregation.
V. Personal Reflection
As a high school teacher, I support the decisions made in Brown v. Board of Education
(1954). There is absolutely no reason children should receive different qualities of education
based on the color of their skin. This allows schools to be places where discussions can include
Case Review Assignment
various cultures and opinions without becoming an echo chamber of like minded individuals
where there is no growth or discourse in discussion. The recognition that “separate but equal”
has no place in education reflects a commitment to fostering an inclusive and equitable learning
environment for all students which is one of the most important aspects of an educator’s job.
Every student deserves the right to learn and grow in an environment free from discrimination
and prejudice.
The unanimous decision sent a powerful message that education should be a unifying
force, breaking down barriers and creating opportunities for diverse communities to come
together. The ruling also highlighted the potential of the judicial system in addressing social
issues and promoting justice which we can also see in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United
States (1964), Loving v. Virginia (1967) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). This case laid the
groundwork for the previously mentioned cases along with the Civil Rights movement
influencing the fight against racism and discrimination in all aspects.
Case Review Assignment
References
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Justia Law. (n.d.-a).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/
Excerpts from Tinker v. Des Moines U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion, 1968. Excerpts
from Tinker v. Des Moines U.S. Supreme Court Majority Opinion, 1968 | State Historical
Society of Iowa. (n.d.).
https://history.iowa.gov/history/education/educator-resources/primary-source-sets/protest-
america/excerpts-tinker-v-des#:~:text=With%20a%207%2D2%20majority,they
%20stepped%20onto%20school%20property.
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). John F. Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker, minors, etc., et
al., petitioners, V. Des Moines Independent Community School District et al.. Legal
Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503
Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, Will County. The
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. (n.d.). https://www.thefire.org/supreme-
court/pickering-v-board-education-township-high-school-district-205-will-county
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Justia
Law. (n.d.-b). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/
