Meyer v. Nebraska (1923): The Right to Bring Up Your Children

The short answer

In Meyer v. Nebraska, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a teacher's conviction under a Nebraska law that banned teaching young children in languages other than English. The Court held that the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children." It also held that "the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children" was part of that liberty Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). Later Supreme Court cases about parents and children rely on Meyer.

The Fourteenth Amendment says "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). This case is about what the word liberty in that sentence covers.

What the case was about

A 1919 Nebraska law said no one could teach any subject, in any school, "in any language other than the English language." Other languages could be taught as languages only after a pupil had passed the eighth grade Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

The man who brought the appeal (called the "plaintiff in error") was tried and convicted in the District Court for Hamilton County, Nebraska. He was charged with teaching reading in German at Zion Parochial School to a ten-year-old child who had not passed the eighth grade Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It held that the law did not conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment and was a valid exercise of the State's lawmaking power (the opinion calls it the "police power") Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

The question for the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the law, as applied, "unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed" by the Fourteenth Amendment Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

What the court decided

Justice McReynolds wrote the opinion of the Court Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

The Court first explained what "liberty" covers. It said liberty means more than freedom from physical restraint. It includes the right to work, to learn, "to marry, establish a home and bring up children," and to worship Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). A State may not interfere with that liberty through laws that are "arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State to effect." Courts, not only legislatures, decide whether a law crosses that line Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

The Court then looked at parents and schooling. It spoke of "the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life" Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). It found that "Mere knowledge of the German language cannot reasonably be regarded as harmful." It said the law interfered "with the power of parents to control the education of their own" Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

The Court did not say the State has no power over schools. It said the State's power to compel attendance at some school, and to make reasonable rules for all schools, including requiring instruction in English, "is not questioned" Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). But it concluded that this law, as applied, was "arbitrary" and "without reasonable relation to any end within the competency of the State." It reversed the judgment and sent the case back Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

The printed report also points to a separate opinion by Justice Holmes, joined by Justice Sutherland, which appears with the next case in the reports Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). That opinion is not part of the saved text, so this page does not describe it.

In the court's words

Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

In plain English: raising your children is one of the freedoms the Fourteenth Amendment protects Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

His right thus to teach and the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children, we think, are within the liberty of the Amendment.

In plain English: parents had a protected right to hire a teacher to teach their children Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

That the State may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the quality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected.

In plain English: the government has real power, but it must still respect basic rights Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

Why it matters for Texas families

Meyer was not a CPS case, and it did not involve Texas. It matters because it is one of the roots of parents' constitutional rights. The Fourteenth Amendment speaks to every State ("No State shall"), so the liberty it protects limits Texas as well Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

Later Supreme Court cases about families build on Meyer:

• In Stanley v. Illinois (1972), the Court said the rights to conceive and raise one's children have been deemed "essential," citing Meyer. It added that "The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," again citing Meyer Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972). See Stanley v. Illinois (1972): An Unwed Father's Right to a Fitness Hearing.
• In Santosky v. Kramer (1982), the Court cited Meyer among the decisions recognizing that "freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment" Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). Santosky then held that, before a State may sever parental rights, "due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence" Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). See Santosky v. Kramer (1982): The Proof Needed to End Parental Rights.
• In Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), the Court described Meyer as guarding children's right to receive teaching in other languages "against the state's encroachment" Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). Prince also explains the limits on parents' rights. See Prince v. Massachusetts (1944): Parents' Rights and the State's Power to Protect Children.

Meyer itself recognized that the State keeps power over schooling Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). So it is a starting point, not a promise about any particular case. For the specific rights Texas law gives parents during a CPS investigation, see Your Rights When Texas CPS Contacts You (Family Code §261.307). This page is legal information, not legal advice.

Related

• Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): Parents' Right to Direct Their Children's Education
• Prince v. Massachusetts (1944): Parents' Rights and the State's Power to Protect Children
• Stanley v. Illinois (1972): An Unwed Father's Right to a Fitness Hearing
• Santosky v. Kramer (1982): The Proof Needed to End Parental Rights
• Troxel v. Granville (2000): Special Weight for a Fit Parent's Decisions
• Your Rights When Texas CPS Contacts You (Family Code §261.307)