WISCONSIN v. YODER 406 U.S. 205 | May 15, 1972
PETITIONER: Wisconsin RESPONDENT: Jonas Yoder Wallace Miller PONENTE: Chief Justice Warren Burger
FACTS: Respondents, members of the Old Order Amish religion and the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were convicted of violating Wisconsin's compulsory school-attendance law (which requires a child's school attendance until age 16) by declining to send their children to public or private school after they had graduated from the eighth grade. The evidence showed that the Amish provide continuing informal vocational education to their children designed to prepare them for life in the rural Amish community. The evidence also showed that respondents sincerely believed that high school attendance was contrary to the Amish religion and way of life and that they would endanger their own salvation and that of their children by complying with the law. The State Supreme Court sustained respondents' claim that application of the compulsory school-attendance law to them violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Three Amish students from three different families stopped attending the New Glarus High School in the New Glarus, Wisconsin, school district at the end of the eighth grade because of their parents' religious beliefs. The three families were represented by Jonas Yoder (one of the fathers involved in the case) when the case went to trial. They were convicted in the Green County Court due to violation of Wisconsin’s compulsory school-attendance law requiring attendance until age 16. Each defendant was fined the nominal sum of $5. Thereafter the Wisconsin Sup reme Court found in Yoder's favor. At this point Wisconsin appealed that ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Amish did not believe in going to court to settle disputes but instead follow the biblical command to "turn the other cheek." Thus, the Amish are at a disadvantage when it comes to defending themselves in courts or before legislative committees. However, a Lutheran minister, Reverend William C. Lindholm, took an interest in Amish legal d ifficulties from a religious freedom perspective and founded The National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom (partly as a result of this case) and then provided them with legal counsel. Under Amish church standards, higher education was deemed not only unnecessary for their simple way of life, but also endangering to their salvation. These men appealed for exemption from compulsory
Commented [WU1]: The Amish are a group of people who follow the teachings of Jacob Ammann, a 17thcentury citizen of Switzerland. It is a Protestant denomination, closely related to the Mennonites. Mennonites.
The Amish, most of whom live in the United States, follow simple customs and refuse to take oaths, vote, or perform military service. They shun modern technology and conveniences. Transportation for the Amish is by horse and buggy. buggy. They do not have electricity or telephones in their homes. The men usually wear beards and pants with buttons instead of zippers. The women wear white head coverings and plain dresses, usually without buttons—they use straight pins to fasten the clothing.
education under the basis of these religious convictions. They sincerely held to the belief that the values their children would learn at home would surpass the worldly knowledge taught in school.
ISSUE: Whether or not 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
HELD: State Supreme Court sustained respondents' claim that application of the compulsory school-attendance law to them violated their rights u nder the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. The State's interest in universal education is not totally free from a balancing process when it impinges on other fundamental rights, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children. (Has connection to the 1987 Philippine Constitution provision, Section 12 of Article II regarding the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of their children.)
Respondents have amply supported their claim that enforcement of the compulsory formal education requirement after the eighth grade would gravely endanger if not destroy the free exercise of their religious beliefs Aided by a history of three centuries as an identifiable religious sect and a long history as a success ful and self-sufficient segment of American society, the Amish have demonstrated the sincerity of their religious beliefs, the interrelationship of belief with their mode of life, the vital role that belief and daily conduct play in the continuing survival of Old Order Amish communities, and the hazards presented by the State's enforcement of a statute generally valid as to others. Beyond this, they have [406 U.S. 205, 206] carried the difficult burden of demonstrating the adequacy of their alternative mode of continuing informal vocational education in terms of the overall interests that the State relies on in supp ort of its program of compulsory high school education. In light of this showing, and weighing the minimal d ifference between what the State would require and what the Amish already accept, it was incumbent on the State to show with more particularity how its admittedly strong interest in compulsory education would be adversely affected by granting an exemption to the Amish. The State's claim that it is empowered, as parens patriae, to extend the benefit of secondary education to children regardless of the wishes of their parents cannot be sustained against a free exercise claim of the nature revealed by this record, for the Amish have introduced convincing evidence that accommodating their religious objections by forgoing one or two additional years of compulsory education will not impair the physical or mental health of the child, or result in an inability to be self-
Commented [WU2]: The government, or any other authority, regarded as the legal protector of citizens unable to protect themselves.
The principle that political authority carries with it the responsibility for protection of citizens.
supporting or to discharge the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, or in any other way materially detract from the welfare of society. The decision of the US Sup reme Court is also observed in the Philippine Constitutional provision expressed in Section 12 of Article II. “The State recognizes the Sanctity of Family Life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.” In the exercise of their natural right and duty, parents are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid them in the discharge of their responsibility.
DEFINITION OF TERMS Compulsory school attendance (a) Unless the child has a legal excuse or has graduated from high school, any person having under his control a child who is between the ages of 7 and 16 years shall cause such ch ild to attend school regularly during the full period and hours, religious holidays excepted, that the public or private school in which such child should be enrolled is in session until the end of the school term, quarter or semester of the school year in which he becomes 16 years of age.
This section does not apply to any child who is not in proper physical or mental condition to attend school, to any child exempted for good cause by the school board of the district in which the child resides or to any child who has completed the fu ll 4-year high school course. The certificate of a reputable physician in general practice shall be sufficient proof that a child is unable to attend school. Instruction during the required period elsewhere than at school may be sub stituted for school attendance. Such instruction must be approved by the state superintendent as substantially equivalent to instruction given to children of like ages in the public or private schools where such children reside. Whoever violates this section may be fined not less than $5 nor more than $50 or imprisoned not more than 3 months or both. Section 118.15 (1) (b) requires attendance to age 18 in a school district containing a "vocational, technical and adult education school," but this section is concededly inapplicable in this case, for there is no such school in the district involved.
