West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

• Decision Date: 14 June 1943
• Docket Number: No. 591,591
• Citation: 319 U.S. 624,147 A.L.R. 674,87 L.Ed. 1628,63 S.Ct. 1178
• Parties: WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. v. BARNETTE et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

319 U.S. 624

63 S.Ct. 1178

87 L.Ed. 1628

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.

v BARNETTE et al.

No. 591.

Argued March 11, 1943.

Decided June 14, 1943.

On Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Mr. W. Holt Wooddell, of Webster Springs, W. Va., for appellants.

Mr. Hayden C. Covington, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellees.

Mr. Justice JACKSONdelivered the opinion of the Court.

Following the decision by this Court on June 3, 1940, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 60 S.Ct. 1010, 84 L.Ed. 1375, 127 A.L.R. 1493, the West Virginia legislature amended its statutes to require all schools therein to conduct courses of instruction in history, civics, and in the Constitutions of the United States and of the State'for the purpose of teaching, fostering and perpetuating the ideals, principles and spirit of Americanism, and increasing the knowledge of the organization and machinery of the government.'Appel- lant Board of Education was directed, with advice of the State Superintendent of Schools, to 'prescribe the courses of study covering these subjects' for public schools.The Act made it the duty of private, parochial and denominational schools to prescribe courses of study 'similar to those required for the public schools.'¹

The Board of Education on January 9, 1942, adopted a resolution containing recitals taken largely from the Court's Gobitis opinion and ordering that the salute to the flag become 'a regular part of the program of activities in the public schools,' that all teachers and pupils 'shall be required to participate in the salute honoring the Nation represented by the Flag; provided, however, that refusal to salute the Flag be regarded as an Act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with accordingly.'²

The resolution originally required the 'commonly accepted salute to the Flag' which it defined.Objections to the salute as 'being too much like Hitler's' were raised by the Parent and Teachers Association, the Boy and Girl Scouts, the Red Cross, and the Federation of Women's Clubs.³Some modification appears to have been made in deference to these objections, but no concession was made to Jehovah's Witnesses.⁴What is now required is the 'stiff-arm' salute, the saluter to keep the right hand raised with palm turned up while the following is repeated: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

Failure to conform is 'insubordination' dealt with by expulsion.Readmission is denied by statute until compliance.Meanwhile the expelled child is 'unlawfully absent'⁵ and may be proceeded against as a delinquent.⁶His parents or guardians are liable to prosecution,⁷ and if convicted are subject to fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days.⁸

Appellees, citizens of the United States and of West Virginia, brought suit in the United States District Court for themselves and others similarly situated asking its injunction to restrain enforcement of these laws and regulations against Jehovah's Witnesses.The Witnesses are an unincorporated body teaching that the obligation imposed by law of God is superiod to that of laws enacted by temporal government.Their religious beliefs include a literal version of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5, which says: 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them.'They consider that the flag is an 'image' within this command.For this reason they refuse to salute it.

Children of this faith have been expelled from school and are threatened with exclusion for no other cause.Officials threaten to send them to reformatories maintained for criminally inclined juveniles.Parents of such children have been prosecuted and are threatened with prosecutions for causing delinquency.

The Board of Education moved to dismiss the complaint setting forth these facts and alleging that the law and regulations are an unconstitutional denial of religious freedom, and of freedom of speech, and are invalid under the 'due process' and 'equal protection' clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.The cause was submitted on the pleadings to a District Court of three judges.It restrained enforcement as to the plaintiffs and those of that class.The Board of Education brought the case here by direct appeal.⁹

This case calls upon us to reconsider a precedent decision, as the Court throughout its history often has been required to do.¹⁰Before turning to the Gobitis case, however, it is desirable to notice certain characteristics by which this controversy is distinguished.

The freedom asserted by these appellees does not bring them into collision with rights asserted by any other individual.It is such conflicts which most frequently require intervention of the State to determine where the rights of one end and those of another begin.But the refusal of these persons to participate in the ceremony does not interfere with or deny rights of others to do so.Nor is there any question in this case that their behavior is peaceable and orderly.The sole conflict is between authority and rights of the individual.The State asserts power to condition access to public education on making a prescribed sign and profession and at the same time to coerce attendance by punishing both parent and child.The latter stand on a right of self-determination in matters that touch individual opinion and personal attitude.

As the present Chief Justice said in dissent in the Gobitis case, the State may 'require teaching by instruction and study of all in our history and in the structure and organization of our government, including the guaranties of civil liberty which tend to inspire patriotism and love of country.'310 U.S. at page 604, 60 S.Ct. at page 1017, 84 L.Ed. 1375, 127 A.L.R. 1493.Here, however, we are dealing with a compulsion of students to declare a belief.They are not merely made acquainted with the flag salute so that they may be informed as to what it is or even what it means.The issue here is whether this slow and easily neglected¹¹ route to aroused loyalties constitutionally may be short-cut by substituting a compulsory salute and slogan.¹²This issue is not prejudiced by the Court's previous holding that where a State, without compelling attendance, extends college facilities to pupils who voluntarily enroll, it may prescribe military training as part of the course without offense to the Constitution.It was held that those who take advantage of its opportunities may not on ground of conscience refuse compliance with such conditions.Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, 55 S.Ct. 197, 79 L.Ed. 343.In the present case attendance is not optional.That case is also to be distinguished from the present one because, independently of college privileges or requirements, the State has power to raise militia and impose the duties of service therein upon its citizens.

There is no doubt that, in connection with the pledges, the flag salute is a form of utterance.Symbolism is a primitive but effective way of communicating ideas.The use of an emblem or flag to symbolize some system, idea, institution, or personality, is a short cut from mind to mind.Causes and nations, political parties, lodges and ecclesiastical groups seek to knit the loyalty of their followings to a flag or banner, a color or design.The State announces rank, function, and authority through crowns and maces, uniforms and black robes; the church speaks through the Cross, the Crucifix, the altar and shrine, and clerical reiment.Symbols of State often convey political ideas just as religious symbols come to convey theological ones.Associated with many of these symbols are appropriate gestures of acceptance or respect: a salute, a bowed or bared head, a bended knee.A person gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it, and what is one man's comfort and inspiration is another's jest and scorn.

Over a decade ago Chief Justice Hughes led this Court in holding that the display of a red flag as a symbol of opposition by peaceful and legal means to organized government was protected by the free speech guaranties of the Constitution.Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 51 S.Ct. 532, 75 L.Ed. 1117, 73 A.L.R. 1484.Here it is the State that employs a flag as a symbol of adherence to government as presently organized.It requires the individual to communicate by word and sign his acceptance of the political ideas it thus bespeaks.Objection to this form of communication when coerced is an old one, well known to the framers of the Bill of Rights.¹³

It is also to be noted that the compulsory flag salute and pledge requires affirmation of a belief and an attitude of mind.It is not clear whether the regulation contemplates that pupils forego any contrary convictions of their own and become unwilling converts to the prescribed ceremony or whether it will be acceptable if they simulate assent by words without belief and by a gesture barren of meaning.It is now a commonplace that censorship or suppression of expression of opinion is tolerated by our Constitution only when the expression presents a clear and present danger of action of a kind the State is empowered to prevent and punish.It would seem that involuntary affirmation could be commanded only on even more immediate and urgent grounds than silence.But here the power of com- pulsion is invoked without any allegation that remaining passive during a flag salute ritual creates a clear and present danger that would justify an effort even to muffle expression.To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the...