Pierce v. Society of Sisters
268 U.S. 510 June
1, 1925
McReynolds, J.
Facts:
The
challenged Act, effective September 1, 1926, requires every parent, guardian or
other person having control or charge or custody of a child between eight and sixteen
years to send him to a public school for the period of time a public school shall
be held during the current year in the district where the child resides, and failure
so to do is declared a misdemeanor. There are exemptions for children who are not
normal, or who have completed eighth grade, or who reside at considerable distances
from any public school, or whose parents or guardians hold special permits from
the County Superintendent. The manifest purpose is to compel general attendance
at public schools by normal children, between eight and sixteen, who have not completed
the eighth grade.
Appellee, the Society
of Sisters, is an Oregon corporation, organized in 1880, with power to care for
orphans, educate and instruct the youth, establish and maintain academies or schools,
and acquire necessary real and personal property. It has long devoted its property
and effort to the secular and religious education and care of children, and has
acquired the valuable good will of many parents and guardians. It conducts interdependent
primary and high schools and junior colleges, and maintains orphanages for the custody
and control of children between eight and sixteen. In its primary schools, many
children between those ages are taught the subjects usually pursued in Oregon public
schools during the first eight years. Systematic religious instruction and moral
training according to the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church are also regularly
provided. All courses of study, both temporal and religious, contemplate continuity
of training under appellee’s charge; the primary schools are essential to the system
and the most profitable. It owns valuable buildings, especially constructed and
equipped for school purposes. The business is remunerative — the annual income from
primary schools exceeds thirty thousand dollars — and the successful conduct of
this requires long-time contracts with teachers and parents. The Compulsory Education
Act of 1922 has already caused the withdrawal from its schools of children who would
otherwise continue, and their income has steadily declined. The appellants, public
officers, have proclaimed their purpose strictly to enforce the statute.
Issue:
whether
the enactment conflicts with the right of parents to choose schools where their
children will receive appropriate mental and religious training, the right of the
child to influence the parents’ choice of a school, the right of schools and teachers
therein to engage in a useful business or profession, and is accordingly repugnant
to the Constitution and void
Held:
Yes.
The Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians
to direct the upbringing and education of children [p535] under their control: as
often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged
by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency
of the State. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this
Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children
by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not
the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have
the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional
obligations.
No comments:
Post a Comment