First Amendment Case: Tinker vs Des Moines
Ashley Allen
POL-328-H7194 Legal System in America 22EW4
April 14, 2022
Court Analysis: Facts of Case
A class of pupils from a Des Moines, Iowa, public school planned to plan a quiet
demonstration against the Vietnam War. The students intended for their silent protest to include
the donning of black armbands. The principal and school administration were made aware of the
demonstration before the children took part in their quiet protest. In reaction to the students'
protest, the administrator threatened to punish all implicated pupils if they showed up to class
wearing the black armbands. All of the pupils who took part in the silent protest disregarded the
principal's warnings and wore the black wristbands to class. The implicated pupils were all
punished. Parents and students who thought the detention of the children who donned the black
wristbands infringed their right to free expression throughout the detention brought a lawsuit
(freedom of speech).
District Court:
Des Moines High School's parents and students sued the school system for infringing
upon their children's freedom of opinion and assembly. In order to prevent their children from
being in any way pressured by the school system, parents made the decision that they also
wished to get an injunction to safeguard the youngsters. The lawsuit will be dismissed by the
tribunal.
Court Opinion:
The circuit judgment ruled that the education department had the right to punish the
students and concluded that the punishment was appropriate.
Plaintiff:
In the historic clause Of the first amendment lawsuit, the complainants included John &
Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt.
Mary Beth Tinker
Her father was a Methodist minister, and Mary Beth Tinker was born there in 1952. Her
parents were certain that their religious principles ought to be carried out. In the 1960s, the
Tinker family played a significant role in the civil rights movement. Her activity and the reason
she formed an organization to oppose the US participation in the Vietnam War were both heavily
influenced by her spirituality.
John Tinker:
In 1950, John was born in Iowa. He was Mary Beth Tinker's brother, and she was one of
the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. He, like Mary Beth, devoted his life to fighting for civil rights and
constitutional rights. Years after the Tinker v. Des Moines case, he told a reporter that the
anti-war protest he attended in Washington, D.C. with his father Leonard was a political
awakening for him. This protest had a significant influence on John's activity, which eventually
brought him before the US Supreme Court to defend his rights.
Christopher Eckhardt:
In the Tinker v. Des Moines lawsuit, Christopher Eckhardt was not as well-known as
John & Mary Beth Tinker. He nonetheless had a major effect on the lawsuit that served as the
cornerstone for the defense of K–12 rights. He was listed as a complainant in the lawsuit along
with numerous other students who wore black armbands to oppose the American policy adopted
for the Vietnam War and to support the envisaged Christmas truce put forth by then-Sen. Robert
F. Kennedy, which resulted in their suspension from Des Moines High School.
Defendant(s): Des Moines High school District:
The Des Moines School District was made aware of the impending demonstration by
students who planned to wear armbands in opposition to American policy toward the Vietnam
War and in support of then-Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's call for a Christmas truce in remembrance
of all those who had died in the conflict. Any political emblems could not be worn while a
student at the school, according to a district policy. When the students, including John and
MaryBeth Tinker, elected to wear the black armbands anyhow, they decided to suspend all of the
participants in the silent protest. The school system will soon face the US Supreme Court as a
result of this judgment.
Appellate Courts:
U.S Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit:
The Eighth Circuit upheld the District Court's finding that the student's 1st Amendment
right to exercise her freedom of speech never was violated by the school's penalty as well as
being appropriate.
United States Supreme Court:
The court decided in the support of the complainants,John & Mary Beth Tinker, by a 7-2
vote on February 24, 1969.
Opinions:
Justice Abe Fortas:
He said that the majority of the Supreme Court believed the armbands to be a kind of
pure speech. He said that the courts had determined that no kid, regardless of enrollment in or
attendance at a public school, had their civil liberties violated. The courts determined that the
district would need to demonstrate that the acts will "materially and significantly interfere" with
the running of the school in order for them to be granted permission to censor speech. The judges
found that the district's behavior in this instance was more consistent with its fear of "disruption"
than with its desire to meddle.
Justice Hugo L. Black:
He stated in a dissenting view from the majority of the court that students do not have the
freedom to express any opinions at any time under the first amendment. He thought the school
district had the authority to punish the pupils because the armbands were a nuisance and the
distraction would prevent school authorities from carrying out their essential jobs.
Justice M. Harlan:
Justice Harlan stated in his differing viewpoint that the school district should have the
freedom to act in the best interests of the school, provided that this action is not motivated.
Analytical opinion:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the
granting therein, abrogating the liberty to speak, the press's liberty, or the right of the public to
petition the Government for a redress of complaints," states the Constitution. (American Law)
They all had in mind a country where people might live freely and use their fundamental
rights without interference from their government when they drafted the constitution and the Bill
of Rights, as did the anti-federalist founders. It is always debatable whether our country has lived
up to the ideals that its founders intended, but on February 24, 1969, the seven justices of the
Supreme Court made the right choice by siding with Mary Beth Tinker. I think the Tinker v. The
Des Moines ruling by the US Supreme Court was correct for three separate grounds. 1.)
According to the first amendment, local, state, and federal governments are not allowed to
restrict any citizen's capacity or right to free expression. The question of whether speech
encompasses more than only using one's lips to express one's opinions, or symbolic speech, is
one of the trickiest to interpret in terms of this law. Before the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the
significant ruling in Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), helped to make it clear that
symbolic communication is a protected category of speech under the First Amendment, which
safeguards one's unalienable right to "freedom of speech." The United States Supreme Court
ruled in Stromberg v. California that Mr. Stormberg's First Amendment (freedom of
speech/expression) rights were violated by the state of California's government law that forbade
flying a red flag as an emblem of defiance of the United States government. Mr. Stormberg flew
a red flag that resembled the flags of the Soviet Union and the communist party of the United
States. The Supreme Court's majority judgment was written by Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes.
According to them, "he made it plain that one of the privileges protected from interference by the
states under the Fourteenth Amendment was the free speech section of the First Amendment." (
MSTU 2009). In situations involving metaphorical communication in the future, this judgment
could serve as a model. 2. Since state education and their governing bodies are extensions of the
government, the Des Moines board's decision to expel Marth Beth and other Des Moines High
School students for symbolically protesting the American government's involvement in the
Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to class was a violation of their first amendment rights
to freedom of speech and expression. 3.) In addition, the school lacked the appropriate
jurisdiction or capacity to suspend those kids because their armbands did not interfere with the
school's activities. I think the Supreme Court made the right choice in this case for the reasons
listed above in tandem.
References
Cohn, J. (2017, April 30). Remembering Chris Eckhardt, a true free speech hero. FIRE.
Retrieved March 29, 2022, from
https://www.thefire.org/remembering-chris-eckhardt-true-
free-speech-hero/
Facts and case summary - Tinker v. Des Moines. United States Courts. (n.d.). Retrieved March
29, 2022, from https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-
activities/facts-and-case-summary-tinker-v-des-moines
Goodlow, E. (2018, April 30). Meet John Tinker: A low-key Missourian whose supreme court
The case helped pave the way for today's student marches. Columbia Missourian.
Retrieved March 29, 2022, from
https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/meet-john-tinker-
a-low-key-missourian-whose-supreme-court-case-helped-pave-the-way/article_55288fb-
39ac-11e8-affe-5fc9dca873e3.html
Mary Beth Tinker. Tinker Tour. (2018, December 6). Retrieved March 29, 2022, from
https://tinkertourusa.org/about/tinkerbio/
McInnis, T. (n.d.). Stromberg v. California. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/269/stromberg-v-california
