Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

Summary

Pierce v. Society of Sisters is a “substantive due process” case. Substantive due process stands for the proposition that some rights are so fundamental that the state cannot regulate them without exceptional justification, even if there is no written constitutional prohibition on the government’s power. In an era of widespread animus against Catholics, Oregon sought to shutter parochial schools and force parents to send their children to public schools. The Court struck down this law as unreasonably interfering with the liberty of a parent to raise a child in the manner that the parent sees fit.

Read the Full Opinion

Excerpt: Majority Opinion, Justice James C. McReynolds

The challenged act . . . requires every parent, guardian, or other person having control or charge or custody of a child between 8 and 16 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. . . . And without doubt enforcement of the statute would seriously impair, perhaps destroy, the profitable features of appellees’ business and greatly diminish the value of their property.

Appellee the Society of Sisters . . . conducts interdependent primary and high schools and junior colleges, and maintains orphanages for the custody and control of children between 8 and 16. 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. . . .

[T]he Society’s bill alleges that 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 . . . .

Appellee Hill Military Academy is a private corporation . . . conducting for profit an elementary, college preparatory, and military training school for boys . . . .

Appellees are engaged in a kind of undertaking not inherently harmful, but long regarded as useful and meritorious. . . .

Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children 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. . . .

Read the Full Opinion