Tinker was cited in the 1973 court case Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, which ruled that the expulsion of a student for distributing a newspaper on campus containing what the school deemed to be "indecent speech" violated the First Amendment.
v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee.  In Defoe v. Spiva, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that "racially hostile or contemptuous speech" can be restricted, even if it was not disruptive.
Justice Abe Fortas, writing the majority opinion, penned the often-quoted line that neither teachers nor students “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Fortas reasoned that the wearing of armbands was akin to “pure speech” and was therefore protected by the U.S. Constitution.
The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. Stewart cautioned that in some cases it is permissible to limit the rights of children. In a statement about the consequences of the court’s decision, Justice Black dramatically warned: One does not need to be a prophet or the son of a prophet to know that after the Court’s holding today some students in Iowa schools and indeed in all schools will be ready, able, and willing to defy their teachers on practically all orders.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Tinker-v-Des-Moines-Independent-Community-School-District, United States Court - Tinker v. Des Moines Podcast. Fortas added that in seeking to limit student expression when such expression would not interfere with a school’s expected discipline, prohibiting student expression could not be sustained. School Dist. " The Third Circuit cited Tinker when ruling that the school's ban on the bracelets violated the students' right to free speech because the bracelets were not plainly offensive or disruptive. The court reasoned that the principal's editorial decision was justified because the paper was a non-public forum since it was school-sponsored and existed as a platform for students in a journalism class. Tinker v. Des Moines / Applying Precedents: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. , The case was argued before the court on November 12, 1968. Tinker remains a viable and frequently cited court precedent, and court decisions citing Tinker have both protected and limited the scope of student free speech rights. The difference, Fortas maintained, was in the intention of the message and the motivation of the administration in barring the expression.
Updates? -Meyer v. Nebraska (1923): the Court ruled that laws which interfered with the liberty of teacher, student, and parent were unconstitutional. ", Harlan dissented on the grounds that he "[found] nothing in this record which impugns the good faith of respondents in promulgating the armband regulation.". He contrasted the policy regulating armbands to other policies, such as dress codes, which previous court decisions upheld as constitutional. , The Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," that the conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. , In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit re-heard a case en banc that had been argued before a panel of three of its judges, considering whether middle school students could be prohibited from wearing bracelets promoting breast cancer awareness that were imprinted with "I ♥ Boobies!
 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said in Castorina v. Madison County School Board that based on Tinker and other Supreme Court rulings, the school board could not ban Confederate flag T-shirts while other "controversial racial and political symbols" like the "X" symbol associated with Malcolm X and the African American Muslim movement were permitted.
Here are a list of precedents for the Tinker vs. Des Moines case. In general, student free-speech rights extend only to expressions of a political, economic, or social nature that are not part of a school program.
Givhan v. Western Line Consol. It was funded by the Des Moines residents Louise Noun, who was the president of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, and her brother, Joseph Rosenfield, a businessman. Des Moines Independent Community School District, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District, List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 393, "The Struggle for Student Rights: Tinker V. Des Moines and the 1960S", "Entire U.S. appeals court to hear Easton 'Boobies' case", "Update: How the "Boobies" case almost made it to the Supreme Court - National Constitution Center", "Supreme Court declines to hear 'boobies' bracelet case", "The Confederate flag, the First Amendment and public schools", "Hardwick v. Heyward, 2013 U.S. App.