Facts of the Case
Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs.
Questions
Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?
Conclusions
-
The Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade. In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court found that the values and programs of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion," and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law. Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent but joined with the majority regarding Yoder. Justices Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Supreme Court to Weigh Whether Religious Parents Have Right of Opt-Out from Controversial Curriculum
The Supreme Court’s term is already chock full of cases with culture war implications: pornography...
Supreme Court to Weigh Whether Religious Parents Have Right of Opt-Out from Controversial Curriculum
The Supreme Court’s term is already chock full of cases with culture war implications: pornography...
The Time Is Ripe to Disincorporate the Establishment Clause
Federalist Society Review, Volume 25
The Supreme Court’s 1947 incorporation of the Establishment Clause[1] through the Due Process Clause of...
Parental Rights and “Social Transitions” at School: Mead v. Rockford Public School District
When a child struggles with gender dysphoria, many public schools will intentionally and actively conceal...
Mahmoud v. Montgomery County Public Schools: A Religious Liberty Controversy to Watch
In Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools, parents are forbidden to know when their elementary-school children...
Measuring and Evaluating Public Responses to Religious Rights Rulings
Federalist Society Review, Volume 23
The story of Jack Phillips and his cake shop—Masterpiece Cakeshop—is by now familiar. Jack Phillips...
Can a New Establishment Clause Jurisprudence Succeed in Protecting Religious Minorities Where Lemon Has Failed?
Federalist Society Review, Volume 20
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
The President's Immigration Travel Ban: What Trump v. Hawaii Has to Say About Stating a Claim Under the Establishment Clause
It is little appreciated that the United States Supreme Court’s decision today in Trump v. Hawaii,...
Stormans v. Wiesman: Paths to Strict Scrutiny in Religious Free Exercise Cases
Federalist Society Review, Volume 17, Issue 2
Note from the Editor: This article is about Stormans v. Wiesman, a case from the 9th...
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Engage Volume 15, Issue 1 February 2014
Note from the Editor: This article is a discussion about the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby...