The right of parental control also extends to the type of education children receive.

MEYER V STATE OF NEBRASKA

No. 325
Argued February 23, 1923
Decided June 4, 1923
262 U.S. 390

ROBERT T. MEYER, Petitioners,

vs.
STATE OF NEBRASKA, Respondents.

JUSTICE JAMES MCREYNOLDS:

FACTS
 Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the District Court for Hamilton County, Nebraska, under an
information which charged that, on May 25, 1920, while an instructor in Zion Parochial School, he unlawfully
taught the subject of reading in the German language to Raymond Parpart, a child of ten years, who had
not attained and successfully passed the eighth grade.
 The information is based upon "An act relating to the teaching of foreign languages in the State of
Nebraska," approved April 9, 1919.
 The Nebraska stature forbids, under penalty, the teaching in any private, denominational, parochial or public
school, of any modern language, other than English, to any child who has not attained and successfully
passed the eighth grade.
 The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the judgment of conviction.

ISSUE/S
1. Whether the statute, as construed and applied, unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by
the Fourteenth Amendment. "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
(Did the Nebraska statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment Clause?)

HOLDINGS/RULINGS
1. YES. A local statute forbidding the teaching of any subject in a non-English language run contrary to the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The liberty guaranteed under U.S. Const. amend. XIV denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right
of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry,
establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally
to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men.

Liberty, the Court explained, means more than freedom from bodily restraint. It also includes the right of a teacher to teach
German to a student, and the right of parents to control the upbringing of their child as they see fit. While the state has a
legitimate interest in encouraging the growth of a population that can engage in discussions of civic matters, the means it
chose to pursue this objective was excessive.

Justice McReynolds notes that “mere knowledge of the German language cannot be reasonably regarded as harmful.” As
such, it is difficult to ascertain why the Respondent should so influence the educational opportunities of the children of the
State and interfere with parental choice of educational experiences.

The Court concludes that the statute as applied is arbitrary and without reasonable relation to any end within the
competency of the State.

CONCLUSION/S

1. The judgment of the court below must be REVERSED.

2. The cause REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.