Tinker v. Des Moines Case Summary

In 1965, the Vietnam War was starting to heat up. President Lyndon B. Johnson committed the first of what eventually would be half a million U.S. soldiers to fight North Vietnamese troops in Southeast Asia. Even in 1965, some American civilians were protesting the war.

In Des Moines, Iowa, junior high school student Mary Beth Tinker, high school students John Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt, and some of their friends and fellow students decided to wear black armbands to show their disapproval of the war.

The principals of the Des Moines schools learned of the plan. On December 14, 1965, the school district met and developed a policy that made wearing an armband a violation of school policy. Teachers would ask students to remove their armbands. Those who did not would face suspension.

Two days later, the Tinker siblings and the other students came to school wearing armbands. There were no other actions involved beyond wearing armbands. A few students at the high schools made “hostile comments.” The students were suspended for breaking school rules and did not return until after New Year’s, without the armbands.

Their parents sued the school district on their behalf, arguing that the school was violating students’ First Amendment right to free speech. When the lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court, it became a landmark case for student freedom of speech rights.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a civil rights action in federal court. They asked for nominal damages and injunctive relief against the schools for the preemptive ban on the protest. The district court dismissed the case. The court agreed that the school district’s actions were reasonably intended to prevent a substantial disruption of school discipline.

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision without issuing an opinion because the judges couldn’t come to a majority decision. This led to the U.S. Supreme Court accepting the case in November 1968.

The Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court began its analysis by distinguishing the wearing of armbands from “actually or potentially disruptive” behavior on the part of those wearing them. The Court also distinguished the armbands from other types of student dress or deportment that schools could control, such as hairstyles or clothing length.

This passive display of opinion was “pure speech” and an expression of the students’ First Amendment rights. Wearing an armband was a form of symbolic speech — nonverbal conduct that communicates a message.

“Material and Substantial Disruption”

The Court continued its analysis by noting that the “protest” had not affected the operation of the schools in any way or affected the rights of students not involved in the protest. Only seven out of more than 18,000 public school students had participated in wearing armbands.

The school board officials developed their ban on armbands out of fear of a disruption, not out of knowledge of one. “Even an official memorandum prepared after the suspension that listed the reasons for the ban on wearing the armbands made no reference to the anticipation of such disruption.”

The Supreme Court ruling held that where there is no showing of “a material and substantial interference” with school activities, a mere desire to avoid the controversy and discomfort of an unpopular opinion is not enough to justify the prohibition.

Holding

The final ruling was 7-2 in favor of the students. In the majority opinion, Justice Abe Fortas wrote:

“A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Students do not, the opinion held, “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech” at the schoolhouse gate. Students had the right to freedom of expression of their views, even controversial views, as long as it remained peaceful.

The Court did not issue an opinion on the request for monetary or injunctive relief and remanded the case back to the lower courts.

Justice Black’s Dissent

Justice Hugo Black supported the school officials’ decision in a dissenting opinion. Justice Black felt that even the nominal comments and discussion caused by the half-dozen armband-wearing students “did exactly what the elected school officials and principals foresaw they would, that is, took the students’ minds off their classwork and diverted them to thoughts about the highly emotional subject of the Vietnam War.”

Mr. Justice Black felt that the courts should not interfere in what went on in schools. This line of thinking would have a considerable impact in the upcoming decades.

The Impact of Tinker

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District was the first Supreme Court case to address students’ free speech rights. The Court’s decision became the foundation of many cases during the civil rights era. Free speech advocates continue to defend against restrictions on students’ free speech in public schools and universities today based on Tinker.

Subsequent cases refined the broad protections granted by Tinker. Many of these have more to do with the changing times rather than changes in free speech. In general, Tinker protects political and social commentary by students, but later cases have carved out exceptions for certain types of speech in public school settings.

In Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), the Supreme Court held that “lewd speech” was not protected under Tinker. Schools could restrict obscene language to prevent disruptive behavior.

Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al. (1988) established that schools have greater authority over school-sponsored speech (like a high school newspaper) than over individual student expression.

Morse v. Frederick (2007) (better known as the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case) established that schools could restrict and punish student speech off school property and outside of school-sponsored events if the activity “might reasonably be regarded” as promoting illegal activity.