Decision: Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
Children, Education, and Privacy
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Can the government regulate what children are taught even in private schools? Does the government have a sufficient "rational interest" in children's education to determine exactly what that education encompasses, no matter where the education is received? Or do parents have a right to determine for themselves what sorts of things their children will learn?
Background Information
In 1919 Nebraska passed a law prohibiting anyone from teaching any subject in any other language except English. In addition, foreign languages could be taught only after the child had passed the eighth grade. The law stated:
- Section 1. No person, individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private, denominational, parochial or public school, teach any subject to any person in any language than the English language.
- Sec. 2. Languages, other than the English language, may be taught as languages only after a pupil shall have attained and successfully passed the eighth grade as evidenced by a certificate of graduation issued by the county superintendent of the county in which the child resides.
- Sec. 3. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be subject to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25), nor more than one hundred dollars ($100), or be confined in the county jail for any period not exceeding thirty days for each offense.
- Sec. 4. Whereas, an emergency exists, this act shall be in force from and after its passage and approval.
Meyer, a teacher at Zion Parochial School school, used a German bible as a text for reading. According to him, this served a double purpose: teaching German and religious instruction. After being charged with violating Nebaraska's statute, he took his case to the Surpeme Court, claiming that his rights and the rights of parents were violated.
Court Decision
The question before the court was whether or not the law violated people's liberty, as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 7 to 2 decision, the Court held that it was indeed a violation of the Due Process Clause.
Although the Constitution does not specifically grant parents the right to teach their children a foreign language, Justice McReynolds stated in the majority opinion that:
The Court has never attempted to define, with exactness, the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Certainly education and the pursuit of knowledge should be encouraged. Mere knowledge of the German language cannot be looked upon as harmful. Meyer's right to teach, and the right of parents to hire him so to teach were within the liberty of this Amendment.
Although the Court accepted that the State may have justification in fostering unity among the populace, they ruled that this particular attempt reached too far into liberty of parents to teach what they wanted to their children.
Significance
This was one of the very first cases in which the Court found that people had liberty rights not specifically listed in the Constitution. It was later used as a basis for Pierce, but it was generally ignored after that until the Griswold decisions.
-->