Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)
Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Background Information
In Massachusetts, a Jehovah's Witness woman named Sarah Prince was convicted for violating child labor laws. She was the guardian of a nine-year old girl, Betty M. Simmons, whom she had brought into a downtown area to preach on the streets. This preaching involved distributing literature in exchange for voluntary contributions.
The child labor laws of which she was later convicted stipulated that no boys under 12 and no girls under 18 were permitted to sell literature or other goods o public thoroughfares. She had three complaints filed against her:
- Refusal to disclose her child's identity and age to a public officer whose duty was to enforce the statutes;
- Furnishing the girl with magazines, knowing she was to sell them unlawfully, that is, on the street; and
- As child's custodian, permitting her to work contrary to law.
Both Prince and her husband were ordained ministers and commonly took their children out to distribute religious literature. She argued that the state's child labor laws violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to exercise her religion and her equal protection rights, in particular because the children themselves were ministers of their religion as well.
Court Decision
In a 5-4 decision in 1944, with Justice Rutledge writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court upheld Massachusetts' laws restricting the abilities of children to sell religious literature.
According to the Supreme Court, the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.
One issue the Court had to decide was whether a parent's presence makes it permissible for the child to engage in actions that would otherwise be prohibited. Noting that the dangers would still exist, the Court decided that the state was free to legislate against this activity, even if adults were allowed to engage in them. The opinion included this expansive statement:
Parents are free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.
Significance
This decision struck an important balance between the people's freedom to instruct and raise their kids in their religion and the state's obligation to protect children from harm, abuse and exploitation. The interest of religious liberty is not without limits - if actions can cause harm to children, they might be restricted.
-->