Pierce v. Society of Sisters

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court striking down an Oregon statute that required all children to attend public school . The decision significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to recognize personal civil liberties. The case has been cited as a precedent in more than 100 Supreme Court cases, including _Roe v. Wade _, and in more than 70 cases in the courts of appeals .

Contents

• 1 Background

• 2 Facts of the case

• 3 Arguments

• 4 Decision

• 5 Legacy

• 6 See also

• 7 References

  • 7.1 Footnotes

  • 7.2 Bibliography

• 8 Further reading

• 9 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

After World War I, some states, concerned about the influence of immigrants and foreign values, looked to public schools for help. The states drafted laws designed to use schools to promote a common American culture.

On November 7, 1922, under Oregon Governor Walter M. Pierce , a Democrat , the voters of Oregon passed an initiative amending Oregon Law Section 5259: the Compulsory Education Act . The citizens' initiative was primarily aimed at eliminating parochial schools , including Catholic schools.

The Compulsory Education Act, before amendment, had required Oregon children between eight and sixteen years of age to attend public school . There were several exceptions incorporated into this Act:

1. Children who were mentally or physically unable to attend school
2. Children who had graduated from eighth grade
3. Children living more than a specified distance by road from the nearest school
4. Children being home-schooled or tutored (subject to monitoring by the local school district )
5. Children attending a state-recognized private school

The Act was amended by the 1922 initiative, which would have taken effect on September 1, 1926; this eliminated the exception for attendees of private schools. Private schools viewed this as an attack on their right to enroll students and do business in the state of Oregon. The act was promoted by groups such as the Knights of Pythias , the Federation of Patriotic Societies, and the Oregon Good Government League. Among the strongest backers of the Act were the Ku Klux Klan , the Orange Order and other anti-Catholic organizations seeking to capitalize on the wave of anti-Catholicism sweeping the nation.

Two sorts of opposition to Oregon's law emerged. One was from nonsectarian private schools, such as the Hill Military Academy , which were primarily concerned with the loss of their revenue . This loss was felt almost immediately, as parents began withdrawing their children from private schools in the belief that they would soon cease to exist. The other, from religious private schools, such as those run by the Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary , was concerned about the right of parents to send their children to parochial schools. ACLU Associate Director Roger Nash Baldwin , a personal friend of Luke E. Hart , the then–Supreme Advocate and future Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus , offered to join forces with the Knights to challenge the law. The Knights of Columbus pledged an immediate $10,000 to fight the law and any additional funds necessary to defeat it.

Facts of the case

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Facts of the case")

The Sisters of the Holy Names and Hill Military Academy separately sued Walter Pierce , the governor of Oregon , along with Isaac H. Van Winkle , the state attorney general , and Stanley Myers, district attorney of Multnomah County (of which Portland is the county seat , and where both the Sisters and the Academy were headquartered). The two cases, heard and decided together, were slanted along slightly different lines. The Sisters' case alleged that "the enactment conflicts with the right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training, the right of the child to influence the parents' choice of a school, the right of schools and teachers therein to engage in a useful business or profession." (268 U.S. 510, 532).

The Sisters' case rested only secondarily on the assertion that their business would suffer based on the law. That is, its primary allegation was that the State of Oregon was violating specific First Amendment rights (such as the right to freely practice one's religion ). Their case alleged only secondarily that the law infringed on Fourteenth Amendment rights regarding protection of property (namely, the school's contracts with the families).

The Hill Military Academy, on the other hand, proposed this as their only allegation :

Appellee Hill Military Academy .... owns considerable real and personal property, some useful only for school purposes. The business and incident good will are very valuable. In order to conduct its affairs, long time contracts must be made for supplies, equipment, teachers, and pupils. Appellants, law officers of the state and county, have publicly announced that the Act of November 7, 1922, is valid and have declared their intention to enforce it. By reason of the statute and threat of enforcement appellee's business is being destroyed and its property depreciated .... The Academy's bill states the foregoing facts and then alleges that the challenged act contravenes the corporation's rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

— _Pierce, Governor of Oregon, et al. v. Hill Military Academy _, companion case , (268 U.S. 510, 532–533)

The schools won their case before a three-judge panel of the Oregon District Court, which granted an injunction against the Act. The defendants appealed their case directly to the Supreme Court of the United States . The Court heard the case on 16 and 17 March 1925.

Arguments

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php

…