Pierce v. Society of Sisters
Pierce v. Society of Sisters | |
---|---|
Case history | |
Prior | 296 F. 928 (D. Ore. 1924) |
Holding | |
The Oregon Compulsory Education Act that required attendance at public schools, forbidding private school attendance, was held unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | McReynolds, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
Compulsory Education Act (Act), 1922 Or. Laws § 5259; U.S. Const. amend. XIV. |
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 269 U.S. 510 (1925), was a
Background
After World War I, some states concerned about the influence of immigrants and foreign values looked to public schools for help. The states drafted laws designed to use schools to promote a common American culture.[2]
On November 7, 1922, under Oregon Governor Walter M. Pierce, the voters of Oregon passed an initiative amending Oregon Law Section 5259: the Compulsory Education Act. The citizens' initiative was primarily aimed at eliminating parochial schools, including Catholic schools.[3][4][5]
The Compulsory Education Act, before amendment, had required Oregon children between eight and sixteen years of age to attend
- Children who were mentally or physically unable to attend school
- Children who had graduated from eighth grade
- Children living more than a specified distance by road from the nearest school
- Children being tutored (subject to monitoring by the local school district)
- Children attending a state-recognized private school
The Act was amended by the 1922 initiative,[6] which would have taken effect on September 1, 1926; this eliminated the exception for attendees of private schools. Private schools viewed this as an attack on their right to enroll students and do business in the state of Oregon. The act was promoted by groups such as the Knights of Pythias, the Federation of Patriotic Societies, and the Oregon Good Government League. Among the strongest backers of the Act were the Ku Klux Klan, the Orange Order and other anti-Catholic organizations seeking to capitalize on the wave of anti-catholicism sweeping the nation.[7]
Two sorts of opposition to the law emerged. One was from
Facts of the case
The Sisters of the Holy Names and Hill Military Academy separately sued Walter Pierce, the governor of Oregon, along with Isaac H. Van Winkle, the state attorney general, and Stanley Myers, district attorney of Multnomah County (of which Portland is the county seat, and where both the Sisters and the Academy were headquartered). The two cases, heard and decided together, were slanted along slightly different lines. The Sisters' case alleged 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." (268 U.S. 510, 532).
The Sisters' case rested only secondarily on the assertion that their business would suffer based on the law. That is, its primary allegation was that the State of
The Hill Military Academy, on the other hand, proposed this as their only allegation:
Appellee Hill Military Academy .... owns considerable real and personal property, some useful only for school purposes. The business and incident good will are very valuable. In order to conduct its affairs, long time contracts must be made for supplies, equipment, teachers, and pupils. Appellants, law officers of the state and county, have publicly announced that the Act of November 7, 1922, is valid and have declared their intention to enforce it. By reason of the statute and threat of enforcement appellee's business is being destroyed and its property depreciated .... The Academy's bill states the foregoing facts and then alleges that the challenged act contravenes the corporation's rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
— Pierce, Governor of Oregon, et al. v. Hill Military Academy, companion case, (268 U.S. 510, 532–533)
The schools won their case before a three-judge panel of the Oregon District Court, which granted an injunction against the Act. The defendants appealed their case directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court heard the case on 16 and 17 March 1925.
Arguments
The
The
"No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare." (268 U.S. 510, 534)
Further, they replied that although the state had a powerful interest in their children's education, the interest was not so strong as to require the state's mandate of an educational choice of this sort. Barring a great emergency, they claimed, the state had no right to require their children to attend, or not to attend, any particular sort of school.
Decision
The Court deliberated for about 10 weeks before issuing their decision on June 1, 1925. The Court unanimously upheld the lower court's decision, and the injunction against the amended Act.
With respect to the discussion of whether the schools' contracts with parents constituted property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, McReynolds agreed that since the schools were corporations, they were not technically entitled to such protections. However, he continued, "they have business and property for which they claim protection. These are threatened with destruction through the unwarranted compulsion which appellants are exercising over present and prospective patrons of their schools. And this court has gone very far to protect against loss threatened by such action." (268 U.S. 510, 535)
McReynolds also agreed that businesses are not generally entitled to protection against loss of business subsequent to "exercise of proper power of the state" (268 U.S. 510, 535). However, citing a number of relevant
In response to the claims by the
Legacy
This decision marked the start of the
Because the statute struck down by Pierce v. Society of Sisters was primarily intended to eliminate
The right of parents to control their children's education without state interference became a "cause célèbre" following the case, and religious groups proactively defended this right from state encroachment. R. Scott Appleby wrote in the American Journal of Education that this led to a "remarkably liberal" education policy wherein religious schools are not subjected to state accreditation but only to "minimal state health and safety" laws.[10]
See also
References
Footnotes
- ^ Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
- ^ "Why We Still Need Public Schools" (PDF). Center on Education Policy. p. 9. Retrieved September 27, 2019.
- ^ Howard, J. Paul (2001). "Cross-Border Reflections, Parents' Right to Direct Their Children's Education Under the U.S. and Canadian Constitutions" (PDF). Education Canada. 41 (2): 36–37. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 29, 2008.
- ^ 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
- ^ "Pierce v. Society of Sisters". University of Chicago Kent School of Law. Retrieved June 28, 2013.
- ^ See the text of the amended Act at FindLaw.com (accessed 20 December 2005)
- ^ Kauffman 1982, p. 282.
- ^ Kauffman 1982, p. 283.
- ^ Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 95 (2000): "Pierce and Meyer, had they been decided in recent times, may well have been grounded upon First Amendment principles protecting freedom of speech, belief, and religion" (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
- JSTOR 1084931.
Bibliography
- Kauffman, Christopher J. (1982). Faith and Fraternalism: The History of the Knights of Columbus, 1882–1982. Harper and Row. ISBN 978-0-06-014940-6.
Further reading
- Abrams, Paula. (2009). Cross Purposes: Pierce v. Society of Sisters and the Struggle over Compulsory Public Education. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-11700-0.
- Alley, Robert S. (1999). The Constitution & Religion: Leading Supreme Court Cases on Church and State. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. pp. 41–44. ISBN 1-57392-703-1.
- Bernstein, David (2011). Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform. Chapter 6. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-307-26313-1.
- Donald P. Kommers and Michael J. Wahoske, eds. "Freedom and Education: Pierce V. Society of Sisters Reconsidered," (Center for Civil Rights, University of Notre Dame Law School, 1978) 111 pages
External links
- Text of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
- "SUPREME COURT: Oregon and Oregonians," TIME