Minersville School Dist v. Gobitis, No. 690

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFRANKFURTER
Citation84 L.Ed. 1375,60 S.Ct. 1010,310 U.S. 586,127 A.L.R. 1493
Decision Date03 June 1940
Docket NumberNo. 690
PartiesMINERSVILLE SCHOOL DIST. et al. v. GOBITIS et al

310 U.S. 586
60 S.Ct. 1010
84 L.Ed. 1375
MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DIST. et al.

v.

GOBITIS et al.

No. 690.
Argued April 25, 1940.
Decided June 3, 1940.

Page 587

Mr. Joseph W. Henderson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioners.

[Argument of Counsel from page 587 intentionally omitted]

Page 588

Messrs. George K. Gardner, of Boston, Mass., and Joseph F. Rutherford, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 588-590 intentionally omitted]

Page 591

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

A grave responsibility confronts this Court whenever in course of litigation it must reconcile the conflicting claims of liberty and authority. But when the liberty invoked is liberty of conscience, and the authority is authority to safeguard the nation's fellowship, judicial conscience is put to its severest test. Of such a nature is the present controversy.

Lillian Gobitis, aged twelve, and her brother William, aged ten, were expelled from the public schools of Minersville, Pennsylvania, for refusing to salute the national flag as part of a daily school exercise. The local Board of Education required both teachers and pupils to participate in this ceremony. The ceremony is a familiar one. The right hand is placed on the breast and the following pledge recited in unison: 'I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' While the words are spoken, teachers and pupils extend their right hands in salute to the flag. The Gobitis family are affiliated with 'Jehovah's Witnesses', for whom the Bible as the Word of God is the supreme authority. The chil-

Page 592

dren had been brought up conscientiously to believe that such a gesture of respect for the flag was forbidden by command of scripture. 1

The Gobitis children were of an age for which Pennsylvania makes school attendance compulsory. Thus they were denied a free education and their parents had to put them into private schools. To be relieved of the financial burden thereby entailed, their father, on behalf of the children and in his own behalf, brought this suit. He sought to enjoin the authorities from continuing to exact participation in the flag-salute ceremony as a condition of his children's attendance at the Minersville school. After trial of the issues, Judge Maris gave at a preliminary stage of the litigation relief in the District Court, 24 F.Supp. 271, on the basis of a thoughtful opinion, 21 F.Supp. 581; his decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 3 Cir., 108 F.2d 683. Since this decision ran counter to several per curiam dispositions of this Court,2 we granted certiorari to give the matter full reconsideration. 309 U.S. 645, 60 S.Ct. 609, 84 L.Ed. —-. By their able submissions, the Committee on the Bill of Rights of the American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, as friends of the Court, have helped us to our conclusion.

We must decide whether the requirement of participation in such a ceremony, exacted from a child who refuses

Page 593

upon sincere religious grounds, infringes without due process of law the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Centuries of strife over the erection of particular dogmas as exclusive or all-comprehending faiths led to the inclusion of a guarantee for religious freedom in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, and the Fourteenth through its absorption of the First, sought to guard against repetition of those bitter religious struggles by prohibiting the establishment of a state religion and by securing to every sect the free exercise of its faith. So pervasive is the acceptance of this precious right that its scope is brought into question, as here, only when the conscience of individuals collides with the felt necessities of society.

Certainly the affirmative pursuit of one's convictions about the ultimate mystery of the universe and man's relation to it is placed beyond the reach of law. Government may not interfere with organized or individual expression of belief or disbelief. Propagation of belief—or even of disbelief in the supernatural—is protected, whether in church or chapel, mosque or synagogue, tabernacle or meetinghouse. Likewise the Constitution assures generous immunity to the individual from imposition of penalties for offending, in the course of his own religious activities, the religious views of others, be they a minority or those who are dominant in government. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. —-, decided this Term, May 20, 1940.

But the manifold character of man's relations may bring his conception of religious duty into conflict with the secular interests of his fellow-men. When does the constitutional guarantee compel exemption from doing what society thinks necessary for the promotion of some great common end, or from a penalty for conduct which appears dangerous to the general good? To state the

Page 594

problem is to recall the truth that no single principle can answer all of life's complexities. The right to freedom of religious belief, however dissident and however obnoxious to the cherished beliefs of others—even of a majority—is itself the denial of an absolute. But to affirm that the freedom to follow conscience has itself no limits in the life of a society would deny that very plurality of principles which, as a matter of history, underlies protection of religious toleration. Compare Mr. Justice Holmes in Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 355, 28 S.Ct. 529, 531, 52 L.Ed. 828, 14 Ann.Cas. 560. Our present task then, as so often the case with courts, is to reconcile two rights in order to prevent either from destroying the other. But, because in safeguarding conscience we are dealing with interests so subtle and so dear, every possible leeway should be given to the claims of religious faith.

In the judicial enforcement of religious freedom we are concerned with a historic concept. See Mr. Justice Cardozo in Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, at page 265, 55 S.Ct. 197, at page 205, 79 L.Ed. 343. The religious liberty which the Constitution protects has never excluded legislation of general scope not directed against doctrinal loyalties of particular sects. Judicial nullification of legislation cannot be justified by attributing to the framers of the Bill of Rights views for which there is no historic warrant. Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.3 The mere possession of religious convictions

Page 595

which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities. The necessity for this adjustment has again and again been recognized. In a number of situations the exertion of political authority has been sustained, while basic considerations of religious freedom have been left inviolate. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637; Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 38 S.Ct. 159, 62 L.Ed. 349, L.R.A.1918C, 361, Ann.Cas.1918B, 856; Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, 55 S.Ct. 197, 79 L.Ed. 343. In all these cases the general laws in question, upheld in their application to those who refused obedirence from religious conviction, were manifestations of specific powers of government deemed by the legislature essential to secure and maintain that orderly, tranquil, and free society without which religious toleration itself is unattainable. Nor does the freedom of speech assured by Due Process move in a more absolute circle of immunity than that enjoyed by religious freedom. Even if it were assumed that freedom of speech goes beyond the historic concept of full opportunity to utter and to disseminate views, however heretical or offensive to dominant opinion, and includes freedom from conveying what may be deemed an implied but rejected affirmation, the question remains whether school children, like the Gobitis children, must be excused from conduct required of all the other children in the promotion of national cohesion. We are dealing with an interest inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values. National unity is the basis of national security. To deny the legislature the right to select appropriate means for its attainment presents a totally different order of problem from that of the propriety of subordinating the possible ugliness of littered streets to the free expression of opinion through distribution of handbills. Compare Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155.

Page 596

Situations like the present are phases of the profoundest problem confronting a democracy—the problem which Lincoln cast in memorable dilemma: 'Must a government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?' No mere textual reading or logical talisman can solve the dilemma. And when the issue demands judicial determination, it is not the personal notion of judges of what wise adjustment requires which must prevail.

Unlike the instances we have cited, the case before us is not concerned with an exertion of legislative power for the promotion of some specific need or interest of secular society—the protection of the family, the promotion of health, the common defense, the raising of public revenues to defray the cost of government. But all these specific activities of government presuppose the existence of an organized political society. The ultimate foundation of a free society is the binding tie of cohesive sentiment. Such a sentiment is fostered by all those agencies of the mind and spirit which may serve to gather up the traditions of a people,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
191 practice notes
  • Fulton v. City of Phila., No. 19-123
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 17, 2021
    ...494 U. S. 652 (1990)); West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943) (overruling Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586 (1940)). In assessing whether to overrule a past decision that appears to be incorrect, we have considered a variety of factors, and four of ......
  • Singer Mgmt. Consultants Inc. v. Milgram, No. 09–2238.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 15, 2011
    ...Gobitis, 108 F.2d 683 (3d Cir.1939) (Biggs, Clark, Kalodner) (affirming an injunction against compulsory flag salutes in schools), rev'd, 310 U.S. 586, 60 S.Ct. 1010, 84 L.Ed. 1375 (1940), overruled by W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943).......
  • Serrano v. Priest
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 30, 1971
    ...such requirements constitutional. The very next year the high court granted certiorari in Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) 310 U.S. 586, 60 S.Ct. 1010, 84 L.Ed. 1375, thereby providing for oral argument and a full briefing of the issue. Although in Gobitis it adhered to its ear......
  • Paka v. Manson, Civ. No. H-241.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • November 22, 1974
    ...the first amendment, United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86, 64 S.Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944); Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 593, 60 S. Ct. 1010, 84 L.Ed. 1375 (1940), may be curtailed if it threatens prison discipline or security, Sharp v. Sigler, 408 F.2d 966 (8......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
183 cases
  • Fulton v. City of Phila., No. 19-123
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 17, 2021
    ...494 U. S. 652 (1990)); West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943) (overruling Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586 (1940)). In assessing whether to overrule a past decision that appears to be incorrect, we have considered a variety of factors, and four of ......
  • Singer Mgmt. Consultants Inc. v. Milgram, No. 09–2238.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 15, 2011
    ...Gobitis, 108 F.2d 683 (3d Cir.1939) (Biggs, Clark, Kalodner) (affirming an injunction against compulsory flag salutes in schools), rev'd, 310 U.S. 586, 60 S.Ct. 1010, 84 L.Ed. 1375 (1940), overruled by W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943).......
  • Serrano v. Priest
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 30, 1971
    ...such requirements constitutional. The very next year the high court granted certiorari in Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) 310 U.S. 586, 60 S.Ct. 1010, 84 L.Ed. 1375, thereby providing for oral argument and a full briefing of the issue. Although in Gobitis it adhered to its ear......
  • Paka v. Manson, Civ. No. H-241.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • November 22, 1974
    ...the first amendment, United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86, 64 S.Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944); Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 593, 60 S. Ct. 1010, 84 L.Ed. 1375 (1940), may be curtailed if it threatens prison discipline or security, Sharp v. Sigler, 408 F.2d 966 (8......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • The Supreme Court as Protector of Civil Rights: Freedom of Expression
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Nbr. 275-1, May 1951
    • May 1, 1951
    ...See his opinion in Near v. Minnesota, 283U. S. 697 (1931).16 See his dissenting opinion in MinersvilleSchool District v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586, 601(1940).17 Dissenting in Bridges v. California, 314U. S. 252, 295 (1941).18 Concurring in Pennekamp v. Florida, 328U. S. 331, 353 (1946).19 Diss......
  • The Fiction of the First Freedom
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 6-2, June 1953
    • June 1, 1953
    ...366 (1918); Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390 (1918); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Minersville School District v.Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940); West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945); Musser v. Utah, 333 U.S. 95 (19......
  • Proceduralize Student Speech.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 6, April 2022
    • April 1, 2022
    ...484 U.S 260. For discussion of the seemingly ineffective censorship in this case, see infra notes 130-131 and accompanying text. (59.) 310 U.S. 586 (60.) 319 U.S. 624 (1943). (61.) Gobitis, 310 U.S. at 591-92. (62.) Id. at 592-96. (63.) Id. at 595, 598. (64.) Id. at 600. (65.) DRIVER, supra......
  • Civil Liberties
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Nbr. 371-1, May 1967
    • May 1, 1967
    ...civil libertarians.74 U.S., 81st Congress, 2nd Session, HouseDoc. No. 708, September 22, 1950.75 Minersville School District v. Gobitis,310 U.S. 586 (1940). Cf. W. Virginia StateBoard of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S.624 (1943).76 For example, the footnote in U.S. v.Carolene Products Co., ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT