Jump to content

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

From Wikisource
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
the Supreme Court of the United States
Syllabus

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District was a decision by the 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.

934239Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District — Syllabusthe Supreme Court of the United States
Court Documents
Concurring Opinions
Stewart
White
Dissenting Opinions
Black
Harlan

United States Supreme Court

393 U.S. 503

Tinker et al.  v.  Des Moines Independent Community School District et al.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

No. 21.  Argued: November 12, 1968 --- Decided: February 24, 1969

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 waring 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 right 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.


383 F.2d 988, reversed and remanded.


Dan L. Johnston argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Melvin L. Wulf and David N. Ellenhorn.

Allan A. Herrick argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Herschel G. Langdon and David W. Belin.

Charles Morgan, Jr., filed a brief for the United States National Student Association, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

Notes

[edit]

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).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse