Landmark Case Explanation

Tinker v. Des Moines is considered a landmark case because it has historical and legal significance that has lasting effects and deals with individual rights and civil liberties. Through the Writ of Ceritori, the Supreme court chose to listen to this case because it dealt with a student's first amendment rights in a school environment. The judicial conference, which makes recommendations on topics that relate to the federal court, helped relate this case to previous cases with related information. Due to strong oral arguments and a supportive Amicus Curiae, the opinion of the court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Tinkers.

Landmark case: historical and legal significance that has lasting effects and deals with individual rights and civil liberties.
Writ of Ceritori: how the higher courts pick which cases they want to hear.
Judicial conference: makes recommendations on topics that relate to the federal court.
Oral arguments: spoken to a court or judge to argue the reasons why their side should win.
Amicus Curiae: someone who is not a party to a particular side, but offers information that relates to the case.
Opinion of the Court: (7/2 majority) the final ruling for a case.

Tinker v. Des Moines Impact

The Protest

In 1969 during the Vietnam war- literally everybody's least favorite year, like seriously, nobody wants another war- Mary Beth and John Tinker planned with multiple other students (and the potted plant, Christopher Eckhardt) to wear black armbands to school to protest the war in Vietnam, and were suspended for refusing to take them off.

This action led to a four year Landmark Case that was one of the first cases to address the freedom of speech and expression given to students during school.

Basically what happened was on December 14, 1965 the administration caught wind of what the petitioners were planning and quite literally flipped their shit. Because he had nothing better to do, the principal threatened the students that if they dared to step foot on campus wearing the armbands, they would be suspended. The rest of the staff thoroughly agreed because if they allowed these armbands to slide then what would be next? Ankles? Wrists? Heaven forbid, shoulders?

The Response

On December 16th, just two days later, Mary Beth and Christopher, innocent, beautiful, peaceful hippies that they were, wore their black armbands to school. John, Mary Beth’s older brother, wore his armband the following day. All three students were sent home from school and informed that they would be suspended unless they removed their armbands. 

Because these kids had some seriously big, brass balls, they refused to remove them. As the planned period to wear the black armbands to school did not expire until January 2nd, the students did not return to school until after New Year’s Day- all three wore black clothes to protest their suspension the day they returned.

In case you didn’t recognize the absolute B.S. above, the principal allowed the suspension of three of his students to continue for three weeks because they wore black armbands. Do you know how much of their education they missed out on? Then again, they probably had a fantastic Christmas holiday.

Their fathers filed a complaint on their behalf in the United St ates District Court under 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. The Code demanded an injunction restraining the school officials and the members of the board of directors of the school district from disciplining the petitioners and it wanted minimal damages. The district court basically said this wasn’t worth their time and dismissed the complaint. It upheld the constitutionality of the school’s action on the grounds that it was reasonable in order to prevent disturbance of school discipline. The court referred to but declined to follow the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in a similar case (that the wearing of political symbols like the armbands can’t be prohibited unless it interfered with the requirements of “appropriate discipline in the operation of school.”) 

Now, because these students didn’t agree with this ruling, they, to quote Nick Fury, “Understood the opinion of [the Court] but given as it was a stupid-ass opinion, [they] elected to ignore it.” So they took their case to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth circuit. The Court was equally divided, and the District Court’s decision was upheld.

This was a very uncool opinion.

Mary Beth, John, and Christopher took their case to the Supreme court because it was considered a landmark case, something studied due to its historical and legal significance that has lasting effects and deals with individual rights and liberties. The final decision ruled in favor of the students- freaking finally- by saying that they were protected by the First Amendment’s Right of Free Speech.

Boom. Mic drop.

The Case

On November 12, 1968, the case began. Rather than focus their efforts on the big steaming pile of turd going on in Vietnam, the government dedicated the Supreme Court’s time to a court case about armbands that lasted four years. They ruled that a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violates the student’s freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment. The armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. Students do not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when on school property- duh. In order to justify suppression, the school must be able to prove that the conduct would interfere with the operation of school- like how shoulders distract the male species from their education.

In a concurring opinion of 7 judges, it was agreed that children are guaranteed the full extent of the First Amendment rights during school as long as their protest is peaceful and does not interfere with the education of others. The majority opinion relies on a distinction between communication through words and communication through action.

In the dissenting opinion of 2 judges, the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time. The appearance of armbands distracted students, so the school district was within its rights to discipline. School officials should be given wide authority to maintain order unless their actions can be proven to stem from a motivation other than legitimate school interest.    

Sources:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html

http://www.streetlaw.org

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21

http://www.caselaw.findlaw.com

Informational Podcast

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/tinker-v-des-moines-podcast

(Seriously, check this out.)