The Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District established that students do not shed their First Amendment rights of freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gates. The majority opinion found that the act of wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was a passive, non-disruptive form of pure speech protected under the First Amendment. To restrict such speech, schools must prove the expression would substantially disrupt school operations. However, the dissent argued schools have the right to discipline students to maintain order and focus on education. This case set the precedent that student speech rights are protected unless it causes significant disruption.
The Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District established that students do not shed their First Amendment rights of freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gates. The majority opinion found that the act of wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was a passive, non-disruptive form of pure speech protected under the First Amendment. To restrict such speech, schools must prove the expression would substantially disrupt school operations. However, the dissent argued schools have the right to discipline students to maintain order and focus on education. This case set the precedent that student speech rights are protected unless it causes significant disruption.
The Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District established that students do not shed their First Amendment rights of freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gates. The majority opinion found that the act of wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was a passive, non-disruptive form of pure speech protected under the First Amendment. To restrict such speech, schools must prove the expression would substantially disrupt school operations. However, the dissent argued schools have the right to discipline students to maintain order and focus on education. This case set the precedent that student speech rights are protected unless it causes significant disruption.
The Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District established that students do not shed their First Amendment rights of freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gates. The majority opinion found that the act of wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was a passive, non-disruptive form of pure speech protected under the First Amendment. To restrict such speech, schools must prove the expression would substantially disrupt school operations. However, the dissent argued schools have the right to discipline students to maintain order and focus on education. This case set the precedent that student speech rights are protected unless it causes significant disruption.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Supreme Court Case Analysis
Use this chart to make notes about landmark Supreme Court cases. Be sure to include significant terms and quotes from the case opinion.
Case: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
School District (1962)
SYLLABUS A group of students in Des Moines decided to plan a
What are the facts? public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam What is the background? War. They decided to wear black armbands throughout the What law, amendment, holiday season and fast on specific nights. The principals and/or constitutional text learned of the plan and created a policy stating any is in dispute? student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, Don’t forget to include with refusal to do so resulting in suspension. Three public relevant rulings, school students were suspended for wearing the legislation, and events. armbands. The students, through their parents, sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expression. Supreme Court delivered an opinion to answer if this violated the protection of freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
MAIN OPINION The wearing of the armbands was Significant Quotes
What was the decision? a quiet and passive form of “As we shall discuss, the What was the majority expression, the students did not opinion? wearing of armbands in disrupt nor infringe upon the rights the circumstances of this Who wrote it? What were the key of others, therefore the armbands case was entirely points? represented pure speech and the divorced from actually or What reasoning was used students did not lose their First potentially disruptive to justify the opinion? Amendment rights when they conduct by those Was there a concurring stepped onto school property. participating in it. It was opinion with additional Court decided that in order to closely akin to "pure reasoning? speech" which, we have justify the suppression of speech, the school must be able to prove repeatedly held, is that the conduct would interfere entitled to comprehensive with the operation of the school. In protection under the the concurring opinion Justice First Amendment…” Potter Stewart wrote that children are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of First Amendment rights and that it is tricky to identify a child’s freedom of speech as equal to an adult’s.
DISSENTING OPINION Argues that the First Amendment Significant Quotes
Who disagreed? does not provide the right to “I have never believed What was the dissenting express ant opinion at any time. opinion? The school district was within their that any person has a Who wrote it? rights to discipline the students right to give speeches or What were the key because the armbands distracted engage in points? other students and detracted from demonstrations where he What reasoning was used the ability of the school officials to pleases and when he to justify the opinion? perform their duties. Was written pleases” by Justice Hugo L. Black.
SIGNIFICANCE The Supreme Court determined that students in school have
What are the protection for their rights to freedom of speech under the First implications? Amendment. To justify restricting this right, school officials must Why is it important? prove that the behavior would "materially and substantially What precedent does it interfere" with the operation of the school. School officials could set for similar disputes? not prove actual significant disruption in the Tinker case, but subsequent case decisions have allowed more limits on student freedoms.
