Wisconsin v. Yoder | BRI’s Homework Help Series

0:00 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This crucial line from the First Amendment reflects the idea that religious liberty is a natural right that all humans possess. This principle has been cherished cherished by Americans throughout our history. But what this means for civil society has been a complicated question.

0:21 While this right is foundational, our government also needs to balance it with its responsibility to govern a diverse and complex society. Health, education and morality are issues where public interest and personal belief often clash. So how should the government balance the right of religious liberty and government interest? In 1971, one Supreme Court case took on this question.

0:45 This is the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder. Throughout the 20th century, the Supreme Court heard a variety of cases regarding religious liberty. In the 1940 case of Cantwell v. Connecticut,

1:07 the Court ruled that a Connecticut law which regulated practitioners of a faith from going door to door to discuss their religion, violated the Free Exercise Clause, since it prevented Jehovah’s Witnesses from publicly prophesizing their religious beliefs. This case incorporated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to apply to the states, which had historically only applied to the federal government.

1:30 In two more landmark cases regarding religious liberty and public schools, the Court ruled the reading of a school prayer unconstitutional in the case of Engel v. Vitale, and a mandatory reading of the Bible unconstitutional in the 1963 case of Abington School District versus Schempp. These cases were the Court’s attempt

1:51 to address how to best balance the free exercise of religion with the government’s obligation to prevent the state from compelling religious practice. In 1968, Jonas Yoder and other Amish parents refused to enroll their children aged 14 and 15 in a Wisconsin public high school. They were subsequently fined for violating a state law that required children to attend school until the age of 16.

2:15 Yoder and the other parents from the Yutzy and Miller families argued that the law violated their freedom of religion. The Amish parents asserted that children should not go to school beyond 8th grade. Instead, they would continue to learn through an informal vocational education within the Amish community. The parents argued that violating this principle would endanger the salvation of their children.

2:37 The State of Wisconsin countered that it had a compelling interest in having an educated citizenry that attended school for a certain number of years. The case was first heard by a Green County trial court which ruled against Yoder and the other parents. This was affirmed by a circuit court, but upon appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed that decision.

2:57 It was after this that the US. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. So how would the highest court rule? Would it uphold the Wisconsin law and deem compulsory education to be beneficial enough to society that religious groups had to comply? Or would it rule that the law in question violated freedom of religion. The Supreme Court ruled that the Wisconsin

3:17 law indeed violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Yoder and the other Amish families were victorious. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Berger stated Amish objection to formal education beyond the 8th grade is firmly grounded in central religious concepts. They object to the high school and higher education generally because the values

3:41 they teach are in marked variance with Amish values and the Amish way of life. They view secondary school education as an impermissible exposure of their children to a worldly influence in conflict with their beliefs. Justice Berger went on stating that the Amish had demonstrated both the sincerity of their religious beliefs as well as the hazards presented

4:02 by the state’s enforcement of the Compulsory Education law. In a concurring opinion, Justice Byron White wrote the state’s valid interest in education has already been largely satisfied once a student completes 8th grade, making any further compulsory education a violation of Amish religious beliefs. Justice William Douglas dissented in part of the majority opinion.

4:24 He argued that instead of the case focusing on the Amish parent’s religious freedom, it should have focused on Frieda Yoder, Vernon Yutzy and Barbara Miller, the Amish children, since they were the ones whose lives would be most impacted by the decision. He wrote Frieda Yoder has in fact testified that her own religious views are opposed to high school education.

4:45 I therefore joined the judgment of the Court as to respond at Jonas Yoder, but Frieda Yoder’s views may not be those of Vernon Yeti or Barbara Miller. I must dissent, therefore, as to respondents Adin Yutzy and Wallace Miller, as their motion to dismiss also raised the question of their children’s religious liberty. In other words, Douglas argued that children themselves

5:07 would need to show a strong belief that a statute violates their own personal religious beliefs for it to be deemed unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Berger argued that the Court deciding what constitutes a religious belief entitled to protection was a delicate question. So delicate a question, in fact, that it would continue to be debated in the decades following the Yoder case.

5:31 During that time, the Court issued important decisions on questions involving drug use, animal sacrifices and indirect government funding of religious schools, and how each case related to freedom of religion. The fundamental questions in these religious liberty cases continue to this day. How will the Court continue to attempt to balance the individual right

5:51 to religious liberty with the interest of the government? This was the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder. If you found this helpful, hit the bell and we’ll see you next time.