Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

Case Facts
In New Glarus, Wisconsin, the school district brought complain to the court over the refusal of Amish families in the county for not sending their older children to school. Wisconsin, like many states, had a compulsory education law in effect which mandated that children attend public or private schools until the age of sixteen. The families responded with two claims: 1. they did not want their children to be uneducated and 2. education was continuing at home so the state had no compelling interest to force the children to attend public or private schools. However, the state of Wisconsin contended that this case was similar to Prince v. Massachusetts where the Court upheld child labor regulations. Wisconsin contended that these laws were similar because they both dealt with the welfare of children.

Legal Question
Do the Compulsory Education laws of Wisconsin violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment?

Ruling
Yes. In a 6-1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Yoder.

Chief Justice Burger wrote the majority opinion and he begins his analysis by discussing how compulsory education laws violate Amish religious beliefs. He writes, "Formal high school education beyond the eighth grade is contrary to Amish beliefs, not only because it places Amish children in an environment hostile to Amish beliefs with increasing emphasis on competition in class work and sports and with pressures to conform to the styles, manners, and ways of the peer group, but also because it takes them away from their community, physically and emotionally." The Amish have no problem with compulsory elementary education, but they believe it is during the time of higher education when children begin to develop values.

Burger continues with an acknowledgment of the state's power to "impose reasonable regulations" for basic education, but also highlights that this power is not unlimited. In order for Wisconsin to justify compulsory education against a claim that it interferes with religious belief, it must either prove that 1.) the mandate does not interfere with the free exercise of religion or 2.) the state interest is so great that it overrides the free exercise claim. This is Sherbert in action, and Burger finds that the state has met neither requirement to uphold the compulsory education law.

Burger justifies this decision in a few key ways. First, he finds overwhelming evidence in the quality of the claims put forth by the Amish. "The traditional way of life of the Amish is not merely a matter of personal preference, but one of deep religious conviction." In other words, this claim is not one that rests on secular concerns, but one that is backed purely by religious beliefs. Forcing Amish children to attend public school would undoubtedly interfere with religious development.

In response to state claims, Burger is quite dismissive. The state argues that the free exercise claim is void because education is extremely important for the creation of citizens who will protect democracy and for teaching children to be self-reliant. The Court argues that the extra two years of school that this law deals with would do little in place of the informal education that Amish children receive after elementary education. Moreover, the record shows that the Amish community has been a successful unit in society. In this case, there is no demonstration that the children are being subjected to any physical, mental, or social harm by not attending the last two years of school. The state lacks a compelling interest and therefore the law is void.

An interesting dissent comes out of this case from Justice Douglas. He agrees with the approach overall, but believes that the Court is only protecting the parent's interests in this case. "Where the child is mature enough to express potential conflicting desires, it would be an invasion of the child's rights to permit such an imposition without canvassing his views..." Ultimately, Douglas desires a situation where if the child desires to attend high school, the state should be able to override the religious motivations of the parents.