Edit this essay
only $12.90/page

Landmark Case Evaluation Essay Sample

Landmark Case Evaluation Pages
Pages: Word count: Rewriting Possibility: % ()

John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhar who were each suspended from their schools for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam. Circuit Courts and the Court of Appeals in the state of Iowa both ruled that black armbands, which represented bad feelings towards the Vietnam War, was inappropriate attire for school. Because of this ruling and because the kids were each suspended from school, they appealed and brought their matter to a higher court. Ultimately, the Tinker v. Des Moines case reached the highest court in the United States , the Supreme Court.

Evidence presented during the arguments:
Tinkers and Christopher Eckhart filed the following charges against the state of Iowa: The Tinkers stated that their suspension resulted out of legal expressions. They believed they were suspended for simply stating their opinions on the war. They believed this action taken by the school and the stated was a direct violation of their 1st and 14th Amendment rights, which protected free speech and free expression.

Conclusions of the judge/judges:

The United States Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines ruled in favor of the Tinkers and Christopher Eckhart, claiming that the protest undertaken by the students did not intend to spark violence, destruction, damage or criminal activity. Because their protest was peaceful in nature, their expressions and speech were protected by the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. The students were thus allowed to wear their black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War.

Connection with amendment/personal freedom topic for your informative/explanatory article:  This case is a connection to the first amendment and personal freedom because these kids had the right to wear and express how the felt and they should’ve not been punished because of that. Its their personal freedom to express and say what they feel its their freedom of speech they can do it as long as they aren’t causing any real physical damage to others.

Search For The related topics

  • constitution