Prince v. Massachusetts (1944): Parents' Rights and the State's Power to Protect Children

The short answer

In Prince v. Massachusetts, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a guardian's convictions under a state child labor law. She had let a nine-year-old girl in her custody offer religious magazines on a city street. The Court said "the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents." But it also said "neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation" Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). The Court's opinion recognizes both sides: parents' rights are real, and the State still has power to protect children.

Parens patriae is the term the Court used for the State acting "to guard the general interest in youth's well being" Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

What the case was about

Sarah Prince appealed convictions for violating Massachusetts' child labor laws. She said her acts were "a rightful exercise of her religious convictions" Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). She was the aunt and custodian of a girl nine years of age Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

Massachusetts law barred boys under twelve and girls under eighteen from selling newspapers, magazines or other merchandise in any street or public place. That rule was part of the State's "comprehensive child labor law" Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). One evening, Mrs. Prince let the children "engage in the preaching work with her upon the sidewalks," and the girl held up magazines for passers-by Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

She was charged on three complaints. The Massachusetts high court reversed one conviction on state grounds and upheld two: furnishing the girl with magazines knowing she would sell them on the street, and permitting her to work contrary to law Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). In the U.S. Supreme Court, she relied on freedom of religion and on a "claim of parental right" under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

What the court decided

Justice Rutledge wrote the opinion of the Court Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

The Court began with the parents' side. It cited Pierce and Meyer and said "the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents." Those decisions, it said, "respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter" Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

Then it turned to the limits. "But the family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest," the Court wrote. Acting "as parens patriae," the State may restrict a parent's control, for example by requiring school attendance or "regulating or prohibiting the child's labor" Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). The State has "a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare," including, to some extent, matters of conscience and religion Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). And the State's authority over children's activities "is broader than over like actions of adults" Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

The key question was whether the guardian's presence limited the State's power. The Court said it did not: a guardian's presence may reduce some harms "But it cannot forestall all of them" Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). The Court held that, for the public proclaiming of religion on the streets, the State's power over children reaches beyond its authority over adults, and "the rightful boundary of its power has not been crossed in this case." It also rejected the equal protection claim, and the judgment was affirmed Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

The Court stressed that its ruling "does not extend beyond the facts the case presents." Other forms of religious training of children "remain unaffected by the decision" Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

Justice Murphy dissented. He would not have sustained the State's attempt to stop the child from practicing her religion on the public streets Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Roberts and Frankfurter, wrote separately. He agreed the judgment was correct but dissented from the Court's grounds Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

In the court's words

It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.

In plain English: parents come first in raising their children Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

And neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation.

In plain English: parents' rights are strong, but they are not unlimited Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.

In plain English: a parent may take risks for their own beliefs, but the law may stop a parent from putting a child in harm's way for them Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

Why it matters for Texas families

Prince was not a CPS case, and it did not involve Texas. Later decisions cite it on both sides of the balance. In Stanley v. Illinois (1972), the Court quoted its line that the custody, care and nurture of the child "reside first in the parents" Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972). In Parham v. J. R. (1979), the Court cited Prince for the point that "a state is not without constitutional control over parental discretion in dealing with children when their physical or mental health is jeopardized." In the same opinion, it called the idea that government should override parents "in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children" "repugnant to American tradition" Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

Texas child-protection law has rules on both sides of that balance. DFPS must make "a prompt and thorough investigation" of a report of child abuse or neglect Tex. Fam. Code §261.301(a). And at first contact, DFPS must give a parent under investigation a written summary that includes "the person's right to seek legal counsel" Tex. Fam. Code §261.307(a). See The Texas CPS Investigation Process, Step by Step (Family Code §§261.301–261.302) and Your Rights When Texas CPS Contacts You (Family Code §261.307).

Prince itself was narrow. The Court said its ruling does not extend beyond its facts Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). So it does not decide any particular CPS case. This page is legal information, not legal advice.

Related

• Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): Parents' Right to Direct Their Children's Education
• Meyer v. Nebraska (1923): The Right to Bring Up Your 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
• Stanley v. Illinois (1972): An Unwed Father's Right to a Fitness Hearing
• The Texas CPS Investigation Process, Step by Step (Family Code §§261.301–261.302)