Difference between revisions of "Pierce v. Society of Sisters"
m (Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters moved to Pierce v. Society of Sisters) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Pierce v. | + | In ''Pierce v. Society of Sisters'', 268 U.S. 510 (1925), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] struck down an Oregon law requiring students to attend [[public school]] which did not contain an exception for private or religious school. The Court held that a law that "unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."<ref>268 U.S. at 534-35.</ref> |
This is the precedent most often cited in defense of [[homeschooling]] against laws that attempt to limit it. | This is the precedent most often cited in defense of [[homeschooling]] against laws that attempt to limit it. | ||
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 02:51, September 12, 2007
In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Oregon law requiring students to attend public school which did not contain an exception for private or religious school. The Court held that a law that "unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."[1]
This is the precedent most often cited in defense of homeschooling against laws that attempt to limit it.
- ↑ 268 U.S. at 534-35.