tinkervdesmoines

**Tinker et al v. Des Moines**
(U.S. 1969)

__Facts:__ D (school officials) suspended students for wearing protest arm bands P (3 public school students) sought nominal damages and an injunction against the regulation banning the wearing of arm bands

__Issues / Answers:__ Can a school prohibit student protest activity that does not substantially interfere with the conduct of the school’s activities or the rights of others? No.

__Basis / Rationale:__ Legal Basis – constitutional interpretation (First and Fourteen Amendments) and precedent Rationale – you may not prohibit the expression of opinion without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others

__Notes:__ Three public school students in Des Moines were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest Government policy in Vietnam. 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 case was reversed and remanded to the lower court.

“First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

“The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.”

“But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason – whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior – materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.”