Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same v. Hill Military Academy, s. 583
| Decision Date | 01 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 584,Nos. 583,s. 583 |
| Parties | PIERCE, Governor of Oregon, et al. v. SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF THE HOLY NAMES OF JESUS AND MARY. SAME v. HILL MILITARY ACADEMY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Willis S. Moore, of Salem, Or., for other appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 511-512 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Wm. D. Guthrie, of New York City for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 513-521 intentionally omitted]
Mr. J. P. Kavanaugh, of Portland, Or., for appellee Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary.
Messrs. George E. Chamberlain, of Portland, Or., and Albert H. Putney, of Washington, D. C., for appellant Pierce.
Mr. John C. Veatch, of Portland, Or., for appellee Hill Military Academy.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 521-529 intentionally omitted]
These appeals are from decrees, based upon undenied allegations, which granted preliminary orders restraining
appellants from threatening or attempting to enforce the Compulsory Education Act1 adopted November 7, 1922 (Laws Or. 1923, p. 9), under the initiative provision of her Constitution by the voters of Oregon. Judicial Code, § 266 (Comp. St. § 1243). They present the same points of law; there are no controverted questions of fact. Rights said to be guaranteed by the federal Constitution were specially set up, and appropriate prayers asked for their protection.
The challenged act, effective September 1, 1926, requires every parent, guardian, or other person having control or charge or custody of a child between 8 and 16 years to send him 'to a public school for the period of time a public school shall be held during the current year' in the district where the child resides; and failure so to do is declared a misdemeanor. There are
exemptions—not specially important here—for children who are not normal, or who have completed the eighth grade, or whose parents or private teachers reside at considerable distances from any public school, or who hold special permits from the county superintendent. The manifest purpose is to compel general attendance at public schools by normal children, between 8 and 16, who have not completed the eight grade. And without doubt enforcement of the statute would seriously impair, perhaps destroy, the profitable features of appellees' business and greatly diminish the value of their property.
Appellee the Society of Sisters is an Oregon corporation, organized in 1880, with power to care for orphans, educate and instruct the youth, establish and maintain academies or schools, and acquire necessary real and personal
property. It has long devoted its property and effort to the secular and religious education and care of children, and has acquired the valuable good will of many parents and guardians. It conducts interdependent primary and high schools and junior colleges, and maintains orphanages for the custody and control of children between 8 and 16. In its primary schools many children between those ages are taught the subjects usually pursued in Oregon public schools during the first eight years. Systematic religious instruction and moral training according to the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church are also regularly provided. All courses of study, both temporal and religious, contemplate continuity of training under appellee's charge; the primary schools are essential to the system and the most profitable. It owns valuable buildings, especially constructed and equipped for school purposes. The business is remunerative—the annual income from primary schools exceeds $30,000—and the successful conduct of this requires long time contracts with teachers and parents. The Compulsory Education Act of 1922 has already caused the withdrawal from its schools of children who would otherwise continue, and their income has steadily declined. The appellants, public officers, have proclaimed their purpose strictly to enforce the statute.
After setting out the above facts, the Society's bill alleges 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, and is accordingly repugnant to the Constitution and void. And, further, that unless enforcement of lthe measure is enjoined the corporation's business and property will suffer irreparable injury.
Appellee Hill Military Academy is a private corporation organized in 1908 under the laws of Oregon, engaged
in owning, operating, and conducting for profit an elementary, college preparatory, and military training school for boys between the ages of 5 and 21 years. The average attendance is 100, and the annual fees received for each student amount to some $800. The elementary department is divided into eight grades, as in the public schools; the college preparatory department has four grades, similar to those of the public high schools; the courses of study conform to the requirements of the state board of education. Military instruction and training are also given, under the supervision of an army officer. It 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; parents and guardians are refusing to make contracts for the future instruction of their sons, and some are being withdrawn.
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 and that unless appellants are restrained from proclaiming its validity and threatening to enforce it irreparable injury will result. The prayer is for an appropriate injunction.
No answer was interposed in either cause, and after proper notices they were heard by three judges (Judicial Code, § 266 [Comp. St. § 1243]) on motions for preliminary injunctions upon the specifically alleged facts. The court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed appellees against the
deprivation of their property without due process of law consequent upon the unlawful interference by appellants with the free choice of patrons, present and prospective. It declared the right to conduct schools was property and that parents and guardians, as a part of their liberty, might direct the education of children by selecting reputable teachers and places. Also, that appellees' schools were not unfit or harmful to the public, and that enforcement of the challenged statute would unlawfully deprive them of patronage and thereby destroy appellees' business and property. Finally, that the threats to enforce the act would continue to cause irreparable injury; and the suits were not premature.
No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.
The inevitable practical result of enforcing the act under consideration would be destruction of appellees' primary schools, and perhaps all other private primary schools for normal children within the state of Oregon. Appellees are engaged in a kind...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BJRL v. State of Utah
...510 (1965) (statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925) (statute requiring parents to send children to public schools exclusively is an unreasonable interference ......
-
Hodgkins v. Peterson, IP 01-1032-C T/K.
...on "extensive precedent," including Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925), Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944), Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205......
-
In re V. G.
...that there is a "private realm of family life which the state cannot enter"); Pierce v. Soc'y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary , 268 U.S. 510, 535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925) ("The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his dest......
-
Gilliard v. Kirk
...lineage to Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399-401 43 S.Ct. 625, 626-27, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923), and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925), have consistently acknowledged a "private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Princ......
-
No parent left behind: seeking equality for parents of U.S. citizens
...in immigration matters, individual to . . . bring up children”); Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 534–35 (1925) (finding “it entirely plain that the Act . . . unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbr......
-
Federalism and families.
...ordinance on the ground that the law "slic[ed] deeply into the family itself" (footnote omitted)). (145) Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925). (146) I develop this point in greater detail in Dailey, supra note 130, at 983-89. (147) When I refer to the liberal principle ......
-
The condom controversy in the public schools: respecting a minor's right of privacy.
...an individual's right to "marry, establish a home and bring up children." Id. at 399. Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), the Supreme Court, relying heavily on the new parental right announced in Meyer, invalidated an Oregon law that required parents to se......
-
SEX OFFENDERS AND THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.
...rights to "establish a home and bring up children" and "to control the education of their own"); Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925) (holding that parents have rights "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their (143) See United States v. Hobbs, 710 F.......