Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): Parents' Right to Direct Their Children's Education

The short answer

In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed an Oregon law that would have required children between eight and sixteen to attend public school. The Court held that the law "unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control" Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). It also wrote: "The child is not the mere creature of the State" Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

What the case was about

Oregon voters adopted the Compulsory Education Act through the state's initiative process Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Starting September 1, 1926, it would have required every parent, guardian or other person with custody of a child between eight and sixteen to send the child "to a public school." Failing to do so was a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine or a short jail term. The Court said the law's "manifest purpose" was to make children in that age group who had not finished eighth grade attend public schools Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

Two private schools sued. The Society of Sisters was an Oregon corporation, organized in 1880, with power to care for orphans and run schools. Its schools gave religious instruction according to the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Hill Military Academy was a private corporation organized in 1908 Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). The Society argued that the law conflicted with "the right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training" Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

The state officers had announced they would strictly enforce the law Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). A lower court issued preliminary orders stopping them from enforcing it. That court declared that parents and guardians, "as a part of their liberty, might direct the education of children by selecting reputable teachers and places." The officers appealed Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

What the court decided

Justice McReynolds wrote the opinion of the Court Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

The Court first made clear what was not in dispute. No one questioned the State's power to reasonably regulate all schools, to inspect and supervise them, and to require that all children of proper age attend some school. The State could also require that teachers have good moral character and that certain studies "plainly essential to good citizenship" be taught Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

But this law went further. The Court found it would destroy the private primary schools in the case, "and perhaps all other private primary schools for normal children within the State of Oregon." Nothing in the record showed the schools had failed their students or the State, and there was no emergency that called for extraordinary measures Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

Relying on Meyer v. Nebraska, the Court held that the law unreasonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct their children's upbringing and education Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). It explained that constitutional rights may not be cut back by laws that have "no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State." It said the State has no "general power" to "standardize its children" by forcing them to be taught by public teachers only Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

The Court also addressed the fact that the schools were corporations. It agreed that, in the proper sense, corporations cannot claim the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty. But the schools had business and property that were "threatened with destruction" by the pressure the law put on parents Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

The Court affirmed the lower court's decrees Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

Later, in Prince v. Massachusetts, the Court described the result this way: Pierce had "sustained the parent's authority to provide religious with secular schooling, and the child's right to receive it," against a public-school requirement Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

In the court's words

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.

In plain English: the government may not force every child into one mold by allowing only public-school teaching Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

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.

In plain English: children do not belong to the government. The people raising them have both the right and the duty to prepare them for life Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

Why it matters for Texas families

Pierce was a school case, not a CPS case, and it did not involve Texas. It matters because later Supreme Court decisions about parents and children keep returning to it:

• In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court said that "However read, the Court's holding in Pierce stands as a charter of the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children" Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). See Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Parents, Religion and Schooling After Eighth Grade.
• In Parham v. J. R. (1979), the Court cited Pierce when it said "our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is 'the mere creature of the State'" Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). See Parham v. J. R. (1979): Parents, the State and a Child's Mental Hospital Admission.
• In Santosky v. Kramer (1982), a termination case, the Court listed Pierce 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). See Santosky v. Kramer (1982): The Proof Needed to End Parental Rights.

Pierce also shows the limits. The Court accepted that the State may reasonably regulate schools and require school attendance Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Parents' rights are strong, but they come with what the Court called a "high duty" Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). For how Texas law treats parents during a CPS investigation, see Your Rights When Texas CPS Contacts You (Family Code §261.307) and The Texas CPS Investigation Process, Step by Step (Family Code §§261.301–261.302). This page is legal information, not legal advice.

Related

• Meyer v. Nebraska (1923): The Right to Bring Up Your Children
• Prince v. Massachusetts (1944): Parents' Rights and the State's Power to Protect Children
• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Parents, Religion and Schooling After Eighth Grade
• Parham v. J. R. (1979): Parents, the State and a Child's Mental Hospital Admission
• Santosky v. Kramer (1982): The Proof Needed to End Parental Rights
• Your Rights When Texas CPS Contacts You (Family Code §261.307)