Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Constitutional Topic Areas:
1st Amendment, 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Facts:
In 1965, four sibling students and one of their friends wore black arm bands to school, signifying their stance against the ongoing Vietnam War and support for a proposed Christmas truce. Before the students arrived at school, the principle was notified of their plan and the school board devised a policy that all students wearing the band would be asked to remove it. If students refused, they would be suspended and only reinstated if they complied with the policy. Three of the students, who were in high school and subject to the policy, decided to violate the policy and were subsequently suspended; no disruption to normal school operations or functions was caused by this violation. Subsequently, the children’s father filed suit in the district court arguing their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech was violated by the school’s policy and were represented by the ACLU and the Iowa Civil Liberties Union. The district court affirmed the school board’s policy and the case was appealed. The appellate court tied, which again left the school board’s policy standing. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court via a writ of certiorari
Questions:
1. Does the school board’s policy violate the student’s 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights?
Holding:
1. Yes
Legal Reasoning: Justice A. Fortas (7-2)
1. Students and faculty do not lose their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech when entering school grounds
2. Wearing an arm band signifying one’s opposition to the Vietnam War is considered to be protected under the 1st Amendment
3. If school boards wish to restrict student’s 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights on campus, they must prove the student conduct fell under normal disciplinary actions or substantially interfered with school operations, rather than being motivated by a desire to quell uncomfortable or unpopular conduct
4. The 14th Amendment’s “Due Process Clause” encapsulates 1st Amendment protected rights
5. The “Tinker Test”, or the “Substantial Disruption Test”, essentially states that if a student’s conduct significantly disrupts school operations, their speech or conduct can be prohibited
Dissent: Justice H.L. Black
1. The 1st Amendment extends protections to speech alone; wearing arm bands is not speech by definition, therefore the 1st Amendment cannot be used to protect the students expression
2. Additionally, the students wearing arm bands to school does cause a significant disruption, meaning the school board’s policy should be ruled constitutional
3. It is a “constitutional myth” that any person has the constitutional right to say “what he pleases, where he pleases, and when he pleases”
Dissent: Justice J.M. Harlan II
1. There is no evidence that the school board acted unfavorably to the student’s cause, meaning there is no improper motive or retaliatory rational behind the policy
Significance:
Tinker signified the protection of expressive actions under the 1st Amendment, even though they may not be directly defined as “speech.” In this case, the court gives student expression deference over school boards restrictive policies as students need to be afforded some degree of protected expression to grow and develop into effective adults. Further, the “Tinker Test” or the “Substantial Disruption Test” outlines that if student conduct causes disruption to normal school operations, the conduct can be infringed on
Reflection:
Tinker predicates many 1st Amendment challenges to student conduct at public schools. After Tinker, the case was used to both expand and contract protections to student speech at school. In Papish v. Board (1973), Tinker was used to protect student’s rights to hand out newspapers which the school deemed “indecent.” In another case Bethel School District v. Fraser (1988), students’ freedom of speech derived from Tinker was not constitutionally protected due to vulgar language in a school setting–however if the setting was political in nature, the speech would be protected. The key here is it being indecent to children, causing a significant disruption to school operations. Overall, Tinker strengthened the power of the federal government
Supreme Court Case Briefs 