Wisconsin v yoder - case brief required for the course PDF

Preview

Summary

case brief required for the course...

Description

Sofia Jimenez HIS 260 WISCONSIN V. YODER 406 U.S. 205 (1972) I. FACTS Jonas Yoder and and two other families of the Amish community violated a Wisconsin law requiring children to attend a public or private school until they are sixteen years old by refusing to enroll their children past the eighth grade. The county court fined each family $5. Yoder (representing all families) appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and they ruled in their favor. Wisconsin then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. II. ISSUES 1. Is the Amish objection to secondary school education a legitimate religious belief? 2. Does the Wisconsin law infringe the Amish’s First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion? 3. Are the two additional years of formal schooling necessary for Amish children to participate effectively in society? III. DECISION AND ACTION 1. Yes, the Amish objection is a legitimate religious belief. 2. Yes, the Wisconsin law infringed on their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. 3. No, the two additional years of formal schooling beyond eighth grade is not necessary. Decision 6-1 IV. RATIONALE OF MAJORITY DECISION Chief Justice Burger: On the first issue, the Amish objection to secondary school education is “firmly grounded in the[ir] central religious concepts.” He cites the Sherbert v. Verner (1963) case that supports the claim that the Amish way of life and practices does indeed stem from their faith. Therefore, regarding the second issue, the Wisconsin law infringes upon their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. By requiring Amish children to participate in modern secondary schooling, the “exposure… to a ‘worldly’ influence” would conflict with their core beliefs. C.J. Burger states that their must be “a state interest of sufficient magnitude to override the interest claiming protection under the Free Exercise Clause,” and he finds the extra schooling unnecessary. The Amish alternative, typically vocational training, is sufficient enough for their preparation to participate in society “effectively and intellectually.” He also believes that the Wisconsin law would “in large measure influence, if not determine, the religious future of the child.” Upon delivering, C.J. Burger emphasize the upstanding character of the Amish community, citing evidence of their success as a social unit. V. OTHER OPINIONS Justice Douglas dissented in part, agreeing in the fact that the Amish religious beliefs firmly rejects modern secondary schooling, but also criticizing the majority decision for focusing on the parent’s beliefs when it is the future of the children that is at stake. Although he voted with the court, Justice Douglas worried that “if he [the child] is harnessed to the Amish way of life by

those in authority over him and if his education is truncated, his entire life may be stunted and deformed.” He also felt the Court put an unreasonable emphasis on the “‘law and order’ record” of the Amish, and that it was irrelevant to whether their religion qualified under the protection of the First Amendment. Justice White also states an opinion, believing that some Amish children may choose to pursue other contemporary professions, and that the extra schooling can provide preparation for those who later choose a different way of life. VI. SUMMARY The majority decision, delivered by Chief Justice Burger, found that the Amish’s freedom to practice their religion was violated. Their rejection to modern schooling beyond the eighth grade is a legitimate religious belief, and their success as a social unit justifies that there is no substantial need for another two years of schooling. Chief Justice Burger also notes that the Amish has successfully provided an alternative. While Justice Douglas votes with the court, he finds the “law and order” record of the community irrelevant to the case. He also does not believe that the concern should not be with the belief of the parents, but with the future of the children. Justice White offers the opinion that the extra schooling may be helpful for Amish children who later choose a different path for their future. VII. COMMENTARY This case makes a lot of valid and I generally agree with all of the judges’s opinion, while also agreeing with the final vote— similar to Justice Douglas. I also agree with Justice Douglas’s belief that the children’s future should be the central concern, however, I still find it imperative to understand and concur that the parent’s and Amish beliefs were violated by the Wisconsin law. Chief Justice Burger’s emphasis on the upstanding character of the Amish did seem irrelevant to me, regarding their legitimacy and qualification for protection under the First Amendment; however, I understand how it may be relevant in deciding how necessary the extra two years of school are....