Case Briefing

Case name: Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Facts: Three public school students in Des Moines, Iowa, the petitioners, were suspended from
school for wearing black armbands in protest of the U.S. Governments policy in Vietnam. The
Des Moines School District, the defendants, had implemented a district-wide ban of wearing
armbands days before the planned demonstration. The parents of the petitioners sough nominal
damages for the boards implementation of the ban and subsequent suspension of their children
from school. The Tinker Family, the plaintiff, said that this violated the first and fourteenth
amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that the ban was directly targeted at the familys
demonstration. In defense, the board said this type of demonstration would disrupt the learning
environment of students at the school. Upon learning of the plan to wear armbands, the board
gathered to implement this rule to prevent such distractions and disturbances of the learning
environment.
Procedural History: The complaint of the petitioners was filed in the U.S. District Court under
1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. It aimed for an injunction to restrain school officials
and members of the school district from disciplining the students, and sought nominal damages.
The District Court dismissed the complaint. It stated that the school district had authority to
make such rules if it prevented disturbances at school. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit considered the case. The court was equally divided, and the decision was
affirmed, without opinion. It was then taken to the Supreme Court for consideration.
Issues: Do students have the same protected rights under the First Amendment to demonstrate
their opinions in a non-disruptive manner, regardless of the subject matter and be free from
restrictions to these rights?
Judgement: The court was in favor of the students (petitioners). The case was reversed and
remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court to be sent to lower courts for reconsideration and
alternation of laws in accordance with their ruling.
Holding: Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students do have protected rights to
demonstrate their opinions under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution so long as it is in a
non-disruptive manner. A school board does not have the authority to determine what opinions
students may or may not possess and choose display upon reaching school grounds.
Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: The courts ruling stemmed from the first amendment
of the U.S. Constitution and specifically the decisions in the Terminiello v. Chicago and Burnside
v. Byars cases.
Reasoning: The opinion of the court stated that the freedom of expression students participated
in did not disrupt school activities. This type of demonstration is what provides vigor to the

American society. Individual rights to demonstrate opinions on matters do not stop once they
reach school or any other public sphere, especially if the demonstrators do not cause a
disturbance. The boards concern over a potential disturbance was not enough to override this
individual freedom to express opinions.
Concurring/Dissenting Opinions: Mr. Justice Fortas issued the opinion of the court. Mr. Justice
Stewart concurred with the opinion but disagreed with the notion that children have the same
extensive rights as adults. Mr. Justice White also concurred, but stated that he did not agree with
the distinction of communicating words and actions. He also did not agree with the citation of
free speech from the opinion in Burnside v. Byars. Mr. Justice Black dissented from the courts
opinion. He stated that only a small number of students refused to follow the rules of the school
and that allowing this sort of behavior would negatively affect the school and the country as a
whole.
Additional Comments/Personal Impressions: I agree with the courts ruling. Simply because
the issue is a sensitive subject does not grant a school the ability to restrict one type of
demonstration over another. If the court would have granted a ruling in favor of the boards
decision to ban the armbands, then that would grant government associations, in particular public
school districts, the ability to pick and choose which opinions and movements may or may not be
acceptable to display. The students were non-disruptive and had no intention of causing an
uprising at the school. In a modern example, if school districts were able to restrict
demonstrations of opinions to political or social issues, they may restrict the wearing of religious
symbols or restrict wearing of ribbons to commemorate certain events such as the attack on 9/11
or other national tragedies.