PIERCE v.

SOCIETY OF SISTERS
268 U.S. 510 | June 1, 1925

PLAINTIFFS / APPELLANTS:
Walter Pierce, Governor of Oregon
Isaac H. Van Winkle, Attorney General of Oregon

DEFENDANT / APPELLEE:
Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary
Hill Military Academy

PONENTE: McReynolds, J.

FACTS:
On November 7, 1922, the voters in Oregon passed a Compulsory Education Act initiative, effective
September 1, 1926. It was aimed at creating a common American culture by filtering views that may
negatively influence the established norms of American society. That is why all children between the ages
of eight and sixteen were required to attend public school. Meanwhile, children who were mentally
disabled, lived three miles from the nearest road and had already completed the eighth grade were
excluded from attending school. Incompliance of the parents entails a fine and 30-day stay in jail. The
initiative also targeted parochial schools, specifically Catholic schools, because the thought was that such
parochial schools hindered assimilation.

The Society of Sisters was an Oregon corporation, organized in 1880, with power to care for orphans,
educate and instruct the youth, establish and maintain academies or schools, and acquire necessary real
and personal property. Since the Society worked mostly with bereaved and disadvantaged children they
challenged the fairness of the Act.

Provisions of the Compulsory Education Act was conflicting 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, and the right of schools and teachers to engage in a useful
business or profession, and is accordingly repugnant to the Constitution and void. Furthermore, if not
acted upon, the corporation's business operations and property value will be impaired and diminished,
respectively.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Act unreasonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the
upbringing and education of children under their control

HELD:
Yes. Unconstitutional.

A state law that requires all children in the first eight grades to attend public rather than private or
parochial schools violates the 14th Amendment due process guarantee of "personal liberty." Implicit in
this liberty is the right of parents to choose the kind of education they want for their children (Witt,
Elder)
 The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any
general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from
public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and
direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for
additional obligations.
While the court noted that, as corporations, the appellees could not claim for themselves the
liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, they still had business and property that
was entitled to protection against arbitrary, unreasonable, and unlawful interference.

The court affirmed the order enjoining appellant public officials from enforcing an act that required
children to attend public schools in appellee private primary schools' actions contesting the
constitutionality of the law. The legislation unreasonably interfered with parental rights and appellees'
business interests. An injunction was an appropriate remedy to prevent the present threat of irreparable
harm to appellees.

*Cited as with relation to Section 12 of Article II which states that 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.