1. Tinker V. Des Moines Facts

In December of 1965, a group of adults and students in Des Moines, Iowa held a meeting at the Eckhardt home. They were meeting to discuss the Vietnam War and what they could do to protest against it. They decided to show their support for a truce by fasting on December 16th and New Years Eve. Among these decisions they also decided to wear black armbands during the holiday season. Among this group of people included Mary Beth Tinker who was a 13 year old student in junior high school, her brother John F. Tinker who was 15 years old, and their friend Christopher Eckhardt who was 16 years old.
Mr. Justice Fortas delivered the opinion to the court. The Principals of all Des Moines Schools became aware of this plan and quickly came up with a plan to discourage students from participating. They met on December 14th, 1965 and adopted a policy that stated that any student wearing a black armband to school would be asked to remove it, and if they refused they would be suspended until the student decided to return without the armband. This new policy was made clear to all the petitioners and their parents. On December 16th and 17th of 1965 seven students out of eighteen thousand wore black armbands to school. “When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.” (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21)Three of these seven included Mary Beth Tinker, John F. Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt. Mary Beth and Christopher wore their black armbands to school on December 16th, and were both suspended from school and told they could only return without the armbands. The next day John wore his armband to school and he was also suspended and told he could only return to classes without the armband. Only five of the seven students were suspended for wearing black armbands to school. They returned to school after their planned period of protest which was after New Years Day. After the suspension the school administration issued a statement listing the reasons for banning black armbands. It referred to a former student who had been killed in Vietnam with friends still in school and if any kind of demonstrations existed, it might evolve into something which would be hard to control. They stated that the policy was directed against the principle of demonstrations since, according to them, schools are no place for demonstrations and if students didn’t like the way our elected officials were handling things, it should be handled with a ballot box and not in the halls of our public schools. Mr. Tinker promptly filed a complaint on behalf of his children based on the violation of their right to free expression. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court, it prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent school officials and the respondent members of the board of directors of the school district disciplining the petitioners, and it sought nominal damages. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court dismissed the complaint. It upheld the constitutionality of the school authorities’ action on the grounds that it was reasonable in order to prevent the disturbance of school discipline. Mr. Tinker took the case to the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered the case en banc. The court was equally divided and the District Courts Decision was accordingly affirmed, without opinion. The District Court recognized that the wearing of an armband for the purpose of expressing certain views is the type of symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.