Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
|Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
|United States Supreme Court that defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test is still used by courts today to determine whether a school's disciplinary actions violate students' First Amendment rights. — Excerpted from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, was a decision by the|
United States Supreme Court
TINKER v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Argued: Nov. 12, 1968. --- Decided: Feb 24, 1969
Dan Johnston, Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioners.
Allan A. Herrick, Des Moines, Iowa, for respondents.
Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court. Held:
1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.
2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507.
3. 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. Pp. 507-514.
DISPOSITION: 383 F.2d 988, reversed and remanded. 
|This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).|