1
CASE REVIEWS
Case Reviews Assignment
Linda Marie Williams
School of Education, Liberty University
EDAS 747
Author Note
Linda Marie Williams. I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Linda Marie Williams.
Email: lmwilliams31@liberty.edu
2
CASE REVIEWS
FACTS
A group of students and adults in Des Moines, Iowa held a meeting at the
Eckhardt Home in December 1965 and publicized their objections to
hostilities in Vietnam in support of a truce. However, the school officials of
the public schools became aware of the plan and put a policy in place that if
any student wears these armbands at school would be suspended unless
when asked to do so, and they would remove the armbands (American
University Law Review, p. 818). Students were warned by the principal that they would
be suspended if they wore the armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War due to the
possible disruption of the learning environment. Therefore, when three students at a public
school in Des Moines, Iowa wore black arm bands in protest against the government’s policy in
Vietnam War to school, and once the principal was made aware of the situation, the students
were suspended, Mary Bath Tucker 13-year-old junior high school student and her brother John
Tucker 15, and Christopher Eckhardt 16, both high school students.
School officials did not prohibit the wearing of other symbols with political or controversial
significance; however, suppressed student’s expression of opinions about a specific subject, the
Vietnam War (Essex, p. 54). During this time, parents of these students sued the school for
violating their children’s rights to freedom of speech. In the filed complaint, nominal damages
were sought, and an injunction against the disciplinary action of the school’s discipline.
However, after hearing the evidence presented in the case argued on November 12, 1968, the
district court decided on February 24, 1969, to dismiss it citing constitutionally the school
officials' action on the grounds of reason and to prevent disturbance of school discipline
(American University Law Review, p 818). US District Court upheld [393 U.S. 503, 505] the
constitutionality of the school officials’ action on the ground that it was reasonable to prevent
further disturbance of school discipline.
In wearing armbands, the students were quiet and obedient. Furthermore, they were not
disruptive and did not infringe upon the rights of other students. Which under these
circumstances were within their rights of the free speech clause of the first amendment and the
due process clause of the fourteenth amendment (p.505-506). First Amendment rights are
available to teachers and students (p.505-506). Prohibition against the expression of opinion, and
without evidence is necessary to avoid interference with school discipline and the rights of others
is not allowable under the First and fourteenth amendments (p. 507-517). It was later reversed,
and the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court of Appeals ruling that symbols of political or social
views are not disruptive of school discipline, the first amendment and fourteenth amendments do
not permit officials of state-supported public schools to prohibit students from wearing armbands
on school premises.
MAJOR ISSUES
Students are more apt to challenge school regulations regarding freedom of expression and
religious freedom. The Supreme Court believes the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms
3
CASE REVIEWS
is more vital in both public and private schools. Furthermore, the boards of education must
correspond to these protections. American University Law Review found in Tinker, Mr. Justice
Fortas in delivering the opinion of the court stated, “State-operated schools may not be
enclaves of totalitarianism. Students are persons under our constitution and school officials do
not possess absolute authority over them.” Further stated freedom of speech, assured by the first
amendment and protected against violation by the state and the fourteenth amendment is not
confined to verbal expression. Students are extended the right to protest peacefully by “silent and
reproachful presence.” However, there is no constitutional immunity for actions of violence
threatening the overthrow of the government by unlawful means, as in Stromberg v. California.
In Stromberg v California, the display of a symbol opposing peaceful and legal means to the
organized government was protected by the free speech of the constitution. Also, symbolism was
later discovered as an effective way of communicating ideas by the court in Barnette.
Tests used by courts to determine allowances on the right of unrestricted expression. Such tests
include the clear and present danger theory, the balancing doctrine, and the reasonableness of
rules, where the school stands in for the parent, to justify administrative control over students
and is later discarded. Although, in Tinker, the district court balanced a need for a peaceful
learning environment with the student's right to wear armbands on school premises. There was a
lack of evidence that the wearing of these armbands would interfere with the learning
environment or discipline. The United States Supreme Court held that students are protected by
the First Amendment which is applied to public schools and school officials cannot prohibit
freedom of expression unless it disrupts the educational process.
RATIONALE
1. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District, the U.S. Supreme Court
cited students are entitled to their expression of view unless their views interfere with
discipline and the operation of the schools.
a. Melton (2006) found Federal and state courts have a legal responsibility to protect
the rights of students and preserve their freedom of expression in public schools.
b. The ACLU argued that students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom
of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
c. Justice Abe Fortas affirms the freedom that students have under the Constitution:
In our system, state-operated schools may not be “enclaves of totalitarianism.”
School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students
possess fundamental rights that the state must respect their obligations to the
State. In our system, Justice Fortas cited students may not be guarded as “closed-
circuit recipients” of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may
not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved.
However, in the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to
regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views.
HOLDINGS
The United States Supreme Court held that students in Des Moines, Iowa possess the same
constitutional rights as adults regarding the First Amendment applied to public schools and
4
CASE REVIEWS
school officials cannot prohibit freedom of expression unless it disrupts the educational process.
In a 7-2 decision, on February 24, 1969, the Court affirmed that teachers nor students
“shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse door.
Although, the Court held two instances where school officials may regular these rights of student
speech, such as when speech disrupts the learning environment or entail substantial disorder or
an impact on the rights of other students.
Kellman (2009) found the U.S. Supreme Court held two instances in which student speech can
be regulated, which seemingly ignored the “rights of others” utilizing the prong of the test and
relied solely on the “substantial disruption” prong.
ANALYSIS
Tinkering v. Des Moines School District is a historic Supreme Court ruling from a 1969 case that
secured students’ rights to free speech in public schools’ students were suspended for wearing
armbands in a protest against the Vietnam War. As school officials received notice of this event
to take place, students were warned not to wear the armbands. Students who refuse to take the
armbands off would be suspended. Following the suspension, parents of the students who were
suspended filed a first amendment lawsuit against the school district for damages and against
banning wearing the armbands. Kellman (2009) cited the Court recognized the protection of
constitutional freedoms is more vital in the community of American schools and that the
classroom is the “marketplace of ideas.” However, the District Court dismissed the complaint on
the ground that the Board was within the regulation of their policy. The parents took it to the US
Supreme Court of Appeals which was affirmed by a divided court (Kellman, 2009).
The court of the authority of public school boards will view the Supreme Court's decision on
armbands as one more assumption by many. In addition, it will be determined that the decision
opens up an invitation by the court for disgruntled students, and student groups, to extend their
protest activities. Since the Supreme Court, by its admission, is not supposed to police all claims
of violation of constitutional rights, why should the court interfere with problems of school
discipline? The difficulty with these arguments is that they overlook the true judicial character of
the case that the court decided. That is exactly what the Supreme Court did, with the emphasis on
public school students having the right to raise political questions that school boards want to
embed, as long as the students' free speech activities do not significantly and considerably
disrupt the learning environment of the school or interfere with the rights of other students. (p.
295, America March 15, 1969).
The armband decision is one more example of the rigidity deep-rooted in the notion of a "public
school." As a school should be free to explore all ideas relevant to its educational purposes. As a
governmental system, it is subject not only to constitutional limitations but to continual coercion
from the political, social, and religious forces dominant in the school's community. (p. 295,
America March 15, 1969).
Our youth need to know that this is a part of growing up where lasting impressions, values, and
opinions are critical. Therefore, students should be able to hear from their classmates significant
and true viewpoints, rather than shield them from one-sided debates. School officials should
5
CASE REVIEWS
provide students with the tools they will need to make decisions for themselves. At this point in
their life, most students know what is considered right and what is considered wrong and should
be able to make informed decisions about the life they would like to have as adults.
The Supreme Court is striving to keep this tension from pulling the public schools apart.
Subsequently, the court seems to be doing a good job. Whether it will succeed in continuing the
difference between armbands ("pure speech") and miniskirts (not "pure speech") remains to be
seen (p. 295, America March 15, 1969).
FACTS
Pickering v. Board of Education was argued on March 27, 1968, and decided on June 3, 1968,
391 U.S. 563.
A school teacher wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper complaining about a school
board proposal recently defeated to increase school taxes. However, the letter opposed the
board’s handling of past proposals and allocation of funds that favored athletics over academics.
This letter, according to the school board, was damaging to the operation and administration of
the schools and choose to terminate Pickering’s employment. Later Pickering filed a lawsuit in
the Circuit Court of Will County claiming his letter was speech protected under the first
amendment.
MAJOR ISSUES
The First amendments free speech clause protects the rights of
individuals to engage in free speech without obstruction from the
government. Although this right is not absolute, the context and level
of the government's need to prevent speech is in question. Is the
freedom of speech outweighed by any danger to the community? In
such a dispute, the court looks at the harm which may occur if the
speech is allowed. The needs of the government to carry out its duties
and obligation to the public regarding free speech is balanced.
The Supreme Court was asked whether the letter written by Pickering was protected speech
under the First Amendment. It was held by the Court that it was protected
RATIONALE
Appellee, Board of Education, dismissed the appellant, a teacher, for writing and publishing in a
newspaper a letter criticizing the Board's allocation of school funds between educational and
athletic programs and the Board's and superintendent's methods of informing or preventing the
informing of the school district's taxpayers of the real reasons why additional tax revenues were
being sought for the schools.
6
CASE REVIEWS
1. The Board charged that numerous statements in the letter were false and that the
publication of the statements unjustifiably challenged the Board and school
administration.
2. The Board found all the statements false and concluded that publication of the letter was
"detrimental to the efficient operation and administration of the schools of the district"
and that "the interests of the school required the discharge of employee" under the
applicable statute.
3. There was no evidence at the hearing as to the effect of the appellant's statements on the
community or school administration.
HOLDINGS
Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the 8-1 majority opinion holding that Pickering’s dismissal
violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court noted that similar speech
is not protected if it contains false statements knowingly or recklessly made. There was no
evidence that Pickering’s statements were knowingly false or reckless.
"The theory that public employment which may be denied altogether may be subjected to any
conditions, regardless of how unreasonable, has been uniformly rejected." The Supreme Court
was asked whether the letter written by Pickering was protected speech under the First
Amendment. Yes, the Court held that it was.
ANALYSIS
The Board dismissed Pickering for writing and publishing the letter. Illinois law required the
Board to hold a hearing on the dismissal. At the hearing, the Board charged that numerous
statements in the letter were false and that the publication of the statements unjustifiably argued
the " honesty, integrity, motives, truthfulness, responsibility and competence" of both the Board
and the school administration. The Board also charged that the false statements damaged the
professional reputations of its members, and the school administrators would be disruptive of
faculty discipline and would tend to arouse "controversy, conflict and dissension" among
teachers, administrators, the Board of Education, and the community. As testimony was
introduced from a variety of witnesses on the truth or falsity of the particular statements in the
letter with the Board, it was found that the statements were false as charged. Subsequently, there
was no evidence introduced at any point in the proceedings as to the effect of the publication of
the letter on the community or the administration of the school system, and no specific findings
along these lines were made.
The Illinois courts reviewed the proceedings to determine whether the Board's findings were
supported by evidence and whether, on the facts, the Board could reasonably conclude that the
appellant's publication of the letter was "detrimental to the best interests of the schools."
Pickering's claim that his letter was protected by the First Amendment was rejected on the
ground that his acceptance of a teaching position in the public schools obliged him to refrain
from making statements about the operation of the schools "which in the absence of such
position he would have an undoubted right to engage in."
7
CASE REVIEWS
FACTS
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was argued on December 9, 1952, and reargued on
December 8, 1953, with a decision made on May 17, 1954.A moment in the Civil Rights
movement of the 1950s. This landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US
483 (1954) resulted in the integration of American public schools. In an 8-1 majority
ruling, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote that Pickering’s dismissal violated his First
Amendment right to free speech. However, the Supreme Court noted that similar speech is not
protected if it contains false statements. Pickering’s statements were not evidenced to be
knowingly false or reckless.
MAJOR ISSUES
Plessy v. Ferguson was the ruling law on segregation at the time of Brown v Board of Education
of Topeka, Kansas in 1951. At the time Plessy cited schools may be separated by race as long as
they were equal in quality; however, this was ten called “separate but equal” and Brown was
seeking to overturn Plessy.
The plaintiffs in the Brown case consisted of 13 Topeka parents on behalf of their 20 children.
Thus, the lawsuit cited that segregated schools were not and could never be made equal. This
argument during that time was the 'separate but equal' doctrine which denied African-American
children equal protection under the laws.
RATIONALE
Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Separate but equal educational facilities for racial
minorities are inherently unequal violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment
The case was filed in district court. The district court ruled in favor of the Board of Education,
citing Plessy by stating that the schools in Topeka, although separated by race, were equal
concerning busing, teachers, and buildings.
HOLDINGS
A United States Supreme Court case held that race-based segregation of children into 'separate
but equal' public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and
is unconstitutional. Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities are
constitutionally unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The plaintiffs in Brown appealed the decision, asking the United States Supreme Court to review
the decision of the lower court.
ANALYSIS
8
CASE REVIEWS
The opinion of the unanimous Court was delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Supreme
Court held that “separate but equal” facilities are constitutionally unequal and violate the
protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court well
thought out that the segregation of public education based on race generated a sense of
subordination that had a damaging consequence on the education and personal growth of African
American children
9
CASE REVIEWS
REFERENCES
Constitutional Law - freedom of speech – student demonstrations within first amendment
protection when not disruptive of school discipline - ‘Tinker V. Des Moines Independent
Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).’” The American University law review.
18 (1968): n. page. Print. (1969). American University Law Review. 18(4), 789-854.
https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-
student-expression
Justia.US Law.US Case Law.US Supreme Court. 391.Pickering v. Board of Education
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/563/
Kellman, Bonnie A. "Tinkering with Tinker: protecting the First Amendment in public schools."
Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 85, no. 1, Nov. 2009, pp. 367+. Gale Business: Insights,
link.gale.com/apps/doc/A215481546/GBIB?u=vic_liberty&sid=summon&xid=1bc1e236.
Accessed 29 Jan. 2023.
Melton, S. (1986). Tinkering with high school press: Kuhlmeier v. Hazelwood School District.
Creighton Law Review, 20(4), 1199-1224.
Pickering v. Board of Education. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved January 29, 2023, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/510
10
CASE REVIEWS
Roberts, Robert. “Developments in the Law: Garcetti V. Ceballos and the Workplace Freedom of
Speech Rights of Public Employees.” Public administration review. 67.4 (2007): 662–
672. Web.
School Boards and the Supreme Court. (1969). America, 120(11), 295.
Tinker v Des Moines School District. 44 U.S. 503 (1969)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ussupreme-court/393/503.html
