# Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District > Supreme Court of the United States · February 24, 1969 · 393 U.S. 503 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423911 ## Case - **Full name:** TINKER Et Al. v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** February 24, 1969 - **Citations:** 393 U.S. 503; 49 Ohio Op. 2d 222; 89 S. Ct. 733; 21 L. Ed. 2d 731; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2443 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Harlan - **Judges:** Harlan, Stewart, White, Black, Fortas - **Cited by:** 2,736 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Walker-Serrano v. Leonard, 325 F.3d 412 (2003). - Negative treatments: 4 - Distinguished by: 7 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423911 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - concluding that "the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbance or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred," even t… - holding that the Des Moines School District could not punish high-school and junior high-school students for wearing black arm bands to school in protest of the Vietnam war where the students merely caused discussion outside the classrooms and neither interrupted school activi… - stating that "in some precisely delineated areas, a child -- like someone in a captive audience -- is not possessed of that full capacity for individual choice which is the presupposition of First Amendment guarantees." (emphasis added) (quoting Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. … - holding that students have the right to express their opinions, even on controversial topics, if they do so “without ‘materially and substantially interfer(ing) with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school’ and without colliding with the right… - reasoning that, if a rule were adopted "forbidding discussion of the Vietnam conflict, or expression by any student of opposition to it anywhere on school property except as part of a prescribed classroom exercise," that rule would be unconstitutional absent a showing of mater… ## Opinion text Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting. I certainly agree that state public school authorities in the discharge of their responsibilities are not wholly exempt from the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment respecting the freedoms of expression and association. At the same time I am reluctant to believe that there is any disagreement between the majority and myself on the proposition that school officials should be accorded the widest authority in maintaining discipline and good order in their institutions. To translate that proposition into a workable constitutional rule, I would, in cases like this, east upon those complaining the burden of showing that a particular school measure was motivated by other than legitimate school concerns — for example, a desire to prohibit the expression of an unpopular point of view, while permitting expression of the dominant opinion. Finding nothing in this record which impugns the good faith of respondents in promulgating the armband regulation, I would affirm the judgment below. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423911. Public record. Not legal advice.