Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Justice Stewart agreed that the suspensions were unconstitutional, but rejected any assumption that children possess First Amendment rights fully coextensive with those of adults. In his view, a state may determine, in carefully defined areas, that children lack the full capacity for individual choice that underlies ordinary First Amendment protection.

Justice White joined the Court's opinion but emphasized that the case did not erase the distinction between expression by words and expression through conduct that sufficiently impinges on a valid state interest. He also declined to endorse every aspect of the Fifth Circuit's reasoning in Burnside v. Byars, even though the Court relied on that case's material-disruption formulation.

Justice Black believed that the Court improperly transferred control over school discipline from elected school authorities to federal judges. In his view, the central questions were whether students may use school as a platform for political expression and whether courts should decide which disciplinary rules are reasonable; he answered both questions in favor of school officials.

He accepted that armbands might communicate a political idea, but argued that free speech does not entitle a person to speak or demonstrate wherever and whenever that person chooses. Public schools exist primarily to educate students, and officials may restrict demonstrations that distract students from their assigned work.

Justice Black read the record as showing the distraction school officials predicted: comments, arguments, and heightened attention to the emotionally charged Vietnam War. He regarded that distraction as enough to support the rule, even without loud disorder or violence.

He also objected to what he saw as the majority's revival of a judicially administered reasonableness test. He maintained that courts should not invalidate school rules simply because judges believe the rules unwise, especially where state officials have made a disciplinary judgment about how to preserve an educational environment.

Finally, Justice Black warned that the decision would undermine necessary school and parental discipline by encouraging students to defy school authorities and use litigation to challenge routine efforts to maintain order.

Justice Harlan agreed that public-school officials remain subject to the Fourteenth Amendment's protections for expression and association. But he would give officials the widest authority to maintain discipline and good order in their schools.

He would place the burden on a student challenging a school rule to show that the rule was motivated by something other than legitimate school concerns, such as a purpose to suppress an unpopular view while allowing the dominant view. Because he found no evidence that the Des Moines officials acted in bad faith, he would have affirmed the judgment for the school district.