WISCONSIN v.

YODER
406 U.S. 205 | May 15, 1972

PETITIONER:
Wisconsin

RESPONDENT:
Jonas Yoder
Wallace Miller

PONENTE: Chief Justice Warren Burger

FACTS:
Respondents, members of the Old Order Amish religion and the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, Commented [WU1]: The Amish are a group of people
were convicted of violating Wisconsin's compulsory school-attendance law (which requires a child's school who follow the teachings of Jacob Ammann, a 17th-
century citizen of Switzerland. It is a Protestant
attendance until age 16) by declining to send their children to public or private school after they had denomination, closely related to the Mennonites.
graduated from the eighth grade. The evidence showed that the Amish provide continuing informal
The Amish, most of whom live in the United States,
vocational education to their children designed to prepare them for life in the rural Amish community.
follow simple customs and refuse to take oaths, vote,
The evidence also showed that respondents sincerely believed that high school attendance was contrary or perform military service. They shun modern
to the Amish religion and way of life and that they would endanger their own salvation and that of their technology and conveniences. Transportation for the
Amish is by horse and buggy. They do not have
children by complying with the law. The State Supreme Court sustained respondents' claim that electricity or telephones in their homes. The men
application of the compulsory school-attendance law to them violated their rights under the Free Exercise usually wear beards and pants with buttons instead of
zippers. The women wear white head coverings and
Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
plain dresses, usually without buttonsthey use
straight pins to fasten the clothing.
Three Amish students from three different families stopped attending the New Glarus High School in
the New Glarus, Wisconsin, school district at the end of the eighth grade because of their parents' religious
beliefs. The three families were represented by Jonas Yoder (one of the fathers involved in the case) when
the case went to trial. They were convicted in the Green County Court due to violation of Wisconsins
compulsory school-attendance law requiring attendance until age 16. Each defendant was fined the
nominal sum of $5. Thereafter the Wisconsin Supreme Court found in Yoder's favor. At this
point Wisconsin appealed that ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Amish did not believe in going to court to settle disputes but instead follow the biblical command to
"turn the other cheek." Thus, the Amish are at a disadvantage when it comes to defending themselves in
courts or before legislative committees. However, a Lutheran minister, Reverend William C. Lindholm,
took an interest in Amish legal difficulties from a religious freedom perspective and founded The National
Committee for Amish Religious Freedom (partly as a result of this case) and then provided them with legal
counsel.

Under Amish church standards, higher education was deemed not only unnecessary for their simple way
of life, but also endangering to their salvation. These men appealed for exemption from compulsory
education under the basis of these religious convictions. They sincerely held to the belief that the values
their children would learn at home would surpass the worldly knowledge taught in school.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age
16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children
to school for religious reasons

HELD:
State Supreme Court sustained respondents' claim that application of the compulsory school-attendance
law to them violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable
to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The State's interest in universal education is not totally free from a balancing process when it impinges
on other fundamental rights, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their
children. (Has connection to the 1987 Philippine Constitution provision, Section 12 of Article II regarding
the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of their children.)

Respondents have amply supported their claim that enforcement of the compulsory formal education
requirement after the eighth grade would gravely endanger if not destroy the free exercise of their
religious beliefs

Aided by a history of three centuries as an identifiable religious sect and a long history as a successful and
self-sufficient segment of American society, the Amish have demonstrated the sincerity of their religious
beliefs, the interrelationship of belief with their mode of life, the vital role that belief and daily conduct
play in the continuing survival of Old Order Amish communities, and the hazards presented by the State's
enforcement of a statute generally valid as to others. Beyond this, they have [406 U.S. 205, 206] carried
the difficult burden of demonstrating the adequacy of their alternative mode of continuing informal
vocational education in terms of the overall interests that the State relies on in support of its program of
compulsory high school education. In light of this showing, and weighing the minimal difference between
what the State would require and what the Amish already accept, it was incumbent on the State to show
with more particularity how its admittedly strong interest in compulsory education would be adversely
affected by granting an exemption to the Amish.

The State's claim that it is empowered, as parens patriae, to extend the benefit of secondary education Commented [WU2]: The government, or any other
to children regardless of the wishes of their parents cannot be sustained against a free exercise claim of authority, regarded as the legal protector of citizens
unable to protect themselves.
the nature revealed by this record, for the Amish have introduced convincing evidence that
accommodating their religious objections by forgoing one or two additional years of compulsory The principle that political authority carries with it the
responsibility for protection of citizens.
education will not impair the physical or mental health of the child, or result in an inability to be self-
supporting or to discharge the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, or in any other way materially
detract from the welfare of society.
The decision of the US Supreme Court is also observed in the Philippine Constitutional provision expressed
in Section 12 of Article II. The State recognizes the Sanctity of Family Life and shall protect and strengthen
the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the
life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of
youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the
Government. In the exercise of their natural right and duty, parents are entitled to the support of laws
designed to aid them in the discharge of their responsibility.

DEFINITION OF TERMS
Compulsory school attendance
(a) Unless the child has a legal excuse or has graduated from high school, any person having under his
control a child who is between the ages of 7 and 16 years shall cause such child to attend school regularly
during the full period and hours, religious holidays excepted, that the public or private school in which
such child should be enrolled is in session until the end of the school term, quarter or semester of the
school year in which he becomes 16 years of age.

This section does not apply to any child who is not in proper physical or mental condition to attend school,
to any child exempted for good cause by the school board of the district in which the child resides or to
any child who has completed the full 4-year high school course. The certificate of a reputable physician in
general practice shall be sufficient proof that a child is unable to attend school.

Instruction during the required period elsewhere than at school may be substituted for school attendance.
Such instruction must be approved by the state superintendent as substantially equivalent to instruction
given to children of like ages in the public or private schools where such children reside.

Whoever violates this section may be fined not less than $5 nor more than $50 or imprisoned not more
than 3 months or both.

Section 118.15 (1) (b) requires attendance to age 18 in a school district containing a "vocational, technical
and adult education school," but this section is concededly inapplicable in this case, for there is no such
school in the district involved.