WISCONSIN vs YODER

FACTS:
Respondents Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller are members of the Old Order Amish religion and
respondent Adin Yutzy is a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church.
They were convicted by the Wisconsin Green County Court of violating Wisconsins compulsory
school-attendance law, which is a law requiring children to attend public/private school until the age of
16
They refused to send their children beyond the eight grade because according to them, it was contrary to
the Amish religion and way of life and it would endanger their salvation.
Respondents said that a high school education would expose their children to an environment contrary
to their Amish beliefs.
Instead of sending their children to private/public school, the children are instead given vocational
education to prepare them for the Amish religion and way of life.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents can invoke their rights under the Free Exercise Clause1 of the First Amendment
in declining to send their children to school.

The STATE argued that:

As parens patriae, it extends the benefit of secondary education to children regardless of the wishes of
their parents

Court HELD:
Yes, the respondents can invoke their First Amendment right.
The States interest in universal education is not totally free from a balancing process2 when it impinges
on other fundamental rights, such as those protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment. (balancing test on education and individual freedom religion, religion won.)
Parents have traditional interest when it comes to the religious upbringing of their children.
Respondents have amply supported their claim that their adherence to the compulsory school-
attendance law would gravely endanger, if not destroy the free exercise of their religious belief.
The Amish have amply demonstrated the sincerity of their religious beliefs, grounded on history and
heritage.
The argument of the state that as parents patriae, it can extend the benefits of the secondary education to
children regardless of the wishes of the parents, cannot be sustained against a free
Foregoing one or two years of education will not impair the physical or mental health of the child or
negatively affect the welfare of society.
Now, all states must grant the Amish the right to establish their own schools or to withdraw from
public/private school after the 8th grade.

Douglas dissenting opinion:

Even if the religious scruples of the amish are contrary to the education beyond the grade schools, the
matter should not be within the dispensation of the parents alone.
The Court assumes that the only interests at stake are that of the parents, and that of the State.
The children should be entitled to be heard.
It is the future of the children, not the future of the parents, which are imperiled by the decision.

1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
2 Balancing process (balancing test?) multiple factors are weighed. Probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. In
order for Wisconsin to compel school attendance beyond the eight grade, There is a state interest of sufficient magnitude to override the
interest claiming protection under the Free Exercise Clause.
 GINSBERG vs NEW YORK

FACTS:

Sam Ginsberg and his wife own Sams Stationery and Luncheonette in New York
In New York, it is illegal to willfully or knowingly sell to a minor under 17, any magazine or picture
which depicts nudity and any magazine which, taken as a whole, is harmful to minors.
One day, in October 18, 1965, he sold two girly magazines (Mr Annual and Sarah)
Then on October 26, 1965, he sold one girly magazine (Man to Man)
He sold all three magazines to the same 16 year old boy.
The magazines contain pictures which depict female nudity.

ISSUE
Whether the power of the state may be exercised to punish a person who sells certain publications to
persons based on the age of the reader.
Does it intimidate the vendor and publisher of books to the point where it becomes censorship?

ARGUMENT
Ginsberg argues that the law deprives minors of their liberty.

HELD
The magazines involved were not deemed obscene for adults but the Court held that the pictures were
still harmful to minors under the law
Obscenity is not within the area of protected speech or press (Three pronged test for judging the
obscenity)
Bookcase Case: The State has an exigent interest in preventing distribution to children of objectionable
material, therefore, it can exercise its power to protect the health, safety, welfare and morals of its
community by barring the distribution to children of materials that are only suitable for adults

It is not unconstitutional for New York laws to accord minors a more restricted right than adults
The State has the power to adjust the definition of obscenity when it comes to minors
When there is an invasion of protected freedoms, the power of the State to control the conduct of
children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults.
Parents claim to authority in rearing their children is recognized as basic in society, and are entitled to
the support of laws designed to aid in that responsibility.
The State has an independent interest in protecting the welfare of the children and safeguarding them
from abuses.
Appellant was found guilty