Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Parents, Religion and Schooling After Eighth Grade

The short answer

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for Amish parents who would not send their children to high school after eighth grade. The Court held that "the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevent the State from compelling respondents to cause their children to attend" formal high school to age 16 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). The Court also said its ruling was narrow and that parental power can be limited when a child's health or safety is at risk Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause protects the practice of religion. The Fourteenth Amendment applies that protection to the States Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

What the case was about

The parents were Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). Wisconsin law required children to attend school until age 16. The parents did not send their children, ages 14 and 15, to public school after the children finished eighth grade Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

The parents were charged and convicted in Green County Court and fined $5 each Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). The State agreed that their religious beliefs were sincere Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). The Amish did not object to grade school through eighth grade Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled for the parents under the Free Exercise Clause and reversed their convictions. The State then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

What the court decided

Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Stewart, joined by Justice Brennan, wrote a concurrence. Justice White, joined by Justices Brennan and Stewart, wrote another. Justice Douglas dissented in part. Justices Powell and Rehnquist took no part Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

The Court began by accepting the State's power. A State may "impose reasonable regulations for the control and duration of basic education" Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). A purely secular way of life, however admirable, would not be enough to block those rules. But the record showed that the Amish way of life was "one of deep religious conviction" Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

The Court then stressed the parents' role. It called the primary role of parents in raising their children "an enduring American tradition" Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). When parents' interests are combined with a free exercise claim like this one, the State needs more than a "reasonable relation" to a valid purpose to win Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

The Court affirmed the Wisconsin Supreme Court Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

The limits the Court set. These matter as much as the holding:

• Parental power, even linked to religious freedom, "may be subject to limitation under Prince" if parental decisions "will jeopardize the health or safety of the child, or have a potential for significant social burdens" Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
• In this case, no harm to the children's physical or mental health had been shown or could properly be inferred Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
• The children were not parties. The ruling did not decide a case where the State says parents are keeping children out of high school against the children's own wishes Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
• The Amish made a showing that "probably few other religious groups or sects could make." The ruling was not meant to undermine school-attendance laws in general Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Justice Douglas, dissenting in part, disagreed with treating the question as one for "parents alone." He wrote that the child "should be given an opportunity to be heard" before the exemption Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). Only the majority opinion states what the Court held.

In the court's words

This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.

In plain English: the Court treats parents as having the primary role in raising their children Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

if it appears that parental decisions will jeopardize the health or safety of the child, or have a potential for significant social burdens.

In plain English: the parents' role has limits. Parental power can be limited when a parent's choices would endanger a child's health or safety Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

This case, of course, is not one in which any harm to the physical or mental health of the child or to the public safety, peace, order, or welfare has been demonstrated or may be properly inferred.

In plain English: the parents won partly because no harm to the children was shown Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Why it matters for Texas families

Yoder is about schooling and religion, not about a CPS case. It is still one of the Supreme Court's key statements on parents' right to direct their children's upbringing, and it applies across the country because it rests on the U.S. Constitution.

For families dealing with CPS, the limits are just as important. Seven years later, in Parham v. J. R., the Court cited Yoder 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" Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). So Yoder's protection for parents has limits when a child's health or safety is at risk.

Texas has its own legal definitions for CPS cases. For example, the Family Code defines "neglect" in terms of an act or failure to act that shows blatant disregard for the consequences and that harms the child or creates an immediate danger to the child's physical health or safety Tex. Fam. Code §261.001(4). 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).

If religion is part of your family's situation with CPS, ask a lawyer how these cases and Texas law apply to your facts. 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
• Meyer v. Nebraska (1923): The Right to Bring Up Your Children
• Parham v. J. R. (1979): Parents, the State and a Child's Mental Hospital Admission
• The Texas CPS Investigation Process, Step by Step (Family Code §§261.301–261.302)
• Your Rights When Texas CPS Contacts You (Family Code §261.307)