Tinker vs. Des Moines

This case is about a person’s right to free speech. This case revolves around John F. Tinker, 15 years old, and Christopher Eckhardt, 16 years old, who attended Des Moines area high school. Mary Beth Tinker, john’s sister, went to junior high at the same school district. In December of 1965, a group of people held a meeting at the Eckhardt’s home. The group wanted to publicize their thoughts on the Vietnam hostilities.  This meeting included several parents and students. The members of the meeting decided to wear black armbands and to fast during the time of December 16th thru New Years Eve. As school officials found out about this plan they decided to hold a meeting of their own. In response to the new situation, any kid caught wearing an armband would be asked to remove it. If he/she did not remove the band then they would be suspended until he/she agreed to return without it.

            Mary Beth and Chris wore their armbands to school and refused to remove them. John wore his band the following day. All kids were suspended. Two other kids were suspended for similar reasons. The kids would not return until after New Years Eve, which would be when their time of protest is over.

            The Iowa Civil Liberties Union cam to the tinker’s, and agreed to help them file a lawsuit against the school officials.  They filed a lawsuit to the U.S. District Court. They asked for the school officials who suspended the kids to be removed from office for a period of time. In 1966 the U.S District Court dismissed the case without action, meaning they did not hold a trial. This is because the court agreed with the action of because they thought it was reasonable to prevent a disturbance in school discipline. The court did recognize that the use of armbands was within the right of free speech, but they believed that the school action was reasonable because it was set by fear of a problem occurring on school grounds.

            The group then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The court considered the case but was equally divided by vote and went without opinion. This meant that the District Courts ruling stood.