Pierce v. Society of Sisters

268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925)

Farrington v. Tokushige

273 US 284, 47 S.Ct. 406, 71 L.Ed. 646 (1927)

Respondents were members of numerous voluntary associations conducting foreign language schools for the instruction of Japanese children. The district court enjoined petitioners from enforcing the Law, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Court also affirmed. The Court found that the Law and the measures adopted thereunder went far beyond the mere regulation of privately-supported schools where children obtained instruction deemed valuable by their parents and where there was no conflict with public interest. The Japanese parent had a Constitutional right to direct the education of his own child without unreasonable restrictions.

Wisconsin v. Yoder

406 US 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972)

Did 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?

In a unamimous decision, the Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade. In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court found that the values and programs of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion," and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law.Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent but joined with the majority regarding Yoder.

Fellowship Baptist Church v. Benton

815 F.2d 485 (8th Cir. 1987)

In an appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District (Iowa), the Court was presented with a broad-based attack on Iowa's compulsory school laws. Plaintiffs were fundamentalist Baptist church schools, the churches' pastors, principals, teachers, parents and students. They challenged the district court's findings as to reporting and teacher certification requirements, and the denial of the "Amish exemption."

The decision was affirmed in part and remanded for further consideration. The evidence supported the conclusions regarding reporting and teacher certification requirements. The evidence also supported the holding that denial of the "Amish exemption" had not violated any constitutional guarantee.

State of Ohio v. Whisner

47 Ohio St.2d 181, 351 N.E.2d 750 (1976)

The parents' children attended a nonpublic, religious elementary school. The State alleged that the parents violated § 3321.03 because the school did not conform to the minimum educational standards promulgated by the State's board of education. The parents challenged their convictions on the grounds that the standards infringed upon their right to freely exercise their religion, as guaranteed by U.S. Const. amend. I and XIV and Ohio Const. art. I, § 7. The court held (1) the appellate court erred in questioning whether the parents' beliefs were founded upon religious principles, (2) although the educational standards were facially neutral, they unduly burdened the parents' free exercise rights because they interfered with the school's ability to devote time to the teaching of religious subjects and they required "all activities" of a nonpublic school, including religious activities, to conform to the policies adopted by the board of education, and (3) the standards effectively eradicated the distinction between public and nonpublic education and thereby infringed on the parents' right under U.S Const. amend. XIV to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

Care and Protection of Charles

399 Mass. 324, 504 N.E.2d 592 (1987)

The parents wanted to home school their children, so they informed the school that they would be keeping their children at home, that the wife would be the primary teacher, and that they had already ordered textbooks and materials for use at home. The school committee instituted proceedings to determine whether the children were without necessary and proper educational care and discipline. The parents and school committee initially agreed to work together, and the parents were to submit specific information about lesson plans and books to be used at home. However, the parents revealed very little about the home arrangements. After a hearing, the trial court determined that the children were in need to care and protection with respect to their educational care, and ordered children to begin appropriate schooling. The parents appealed. The court balanced the state interest of educating its citizens with the parents' rights, and held that the statutes applicable to the case were constitutional. The court also held that the school committee could therefore impose reasonable educational requirements similar to those required for public and private schools.