406 U.S. 205 (1972)
In Green County, Wisconsin, 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 and their families reside in Green County.1 Wisconsin's compulsory school-attendance law required them to cause their children to attend public or private school until reaching age 16. The respondents declined to send their children, ages 14 and 15, to public school after they completed the eighth grade.
The children involved were Frieda Yoder, aged 15, Barbara Miller, aged 15, and Vernon Yutzy, aged 14. All had graduated from the eighth grade of public school.2 On complaint of the school district administrator for the public schools, respondents were charged, tried, and convicted in Green County Court of violating the compulsory-attendance law. They were each fined the sum of five dollars.3
At trial, respondents defended on the ground that application of the compulsory-attendance law violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial testimony showed that respondents believed, in accordance with the tenets of Old Order Amish communities generally, that their children's attendance at high school, public or private, was contrary to the Amish religion and way of life.4 The State stipulated that respondents' religious beliefs were sincere.5
Expert witnesses, including scholars on religion and education such as Dr. John Hostetler and Dr. Donald A. Erickson, testified regarding the relationship of Amish beliefs to school attendance and the impact of compulsory high school attendance on Amish communities.6 The Wisconsin Circuit Court affirmed the convictions.7 The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding that the compulsory school-attendance law violated respondents' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.8
On petition of the State of Wisconsin, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.9 The record showed that the Amish have a history dating back to the 16th century Swiss Anabaptists and maintain a way of life emphasizing separation from the world, harmony with nature, and informal learning through doing on the family farm.10 Respondents presented evidence that an additional one or two years of formal high school education would do little to serve the state's interests in preparing citizens for political participation and self-sufficiency.11 The Amish have functioned effectively as a self-sufficient community for more than 200 years.12 There was no evidence in the record that any of the children in this case expressed a desire to attend high school against their parents' wishes.13
Whether Wisconsin's compulsory school-attendance law, as applied to members of the Old Order Amish religion and the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church who refuse on religious grounds to send their children to school beyond the eighth grade, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?14
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, protects individuals from state laws that substantially burden the free exercise of sincere religious beliefs unless the State demonstrates an interest of the highest order that is not otherwise served and that overrides the religious claim, as established in precedents such as Sherbert v. Verner.15
Yes. The compulsory school-attendance law as applied to respondents Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy violates the Free Exercise Clause. The established facts demonstrate that the Amish respondents hold sincere religious beliefs, stipulated by the State, that high school attendance after eighth grade contravenes their faith by exposing children to worldly values and interfering with integration into the Amish community during adolescence. The State failed to show with sufficient specificity how its interests in education to age 16 would be adversely affected by an exemption.16
This conclusion follows from the Amish record of self-sufficiency for over 200 years and the adequacy of their informal vocational education on the family farm.17
The application of the law violates the Free Exercise Clause.18
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Brennan
Justice Stewart concurred in the judgment. He emphasized that the Amish made a sufficient showing that the compulsory attendance statute interferes with the free exercise of their religion.19 He stressed that the decision today does not mean that the State is powerless to regulate in areas of legitimate concern.20
The Court does not hold that all religious beliefs are beyond the reach of the State's compulsory education law.21 The decision is limited to the facts of this case.22
Joined by Justices Brennan And Stewart
Justice White concurred in the opinion of the Court. The record amply supports the conclusion that the Amish religious faith and their mode of life are inseparable and interdependent.23 The State has not shown that its interest in requiring two additional years of compulsory education outweighs the legitimate claims of the Amish.24
He cautioned that this would be a very different case if the religion forbade attendance at any school at any time.25 Here the deviation from the compulsory-education law is relatively slight after eight years of basic education and the sincerity of the beliefs is uncontested.26
Justice Douglas dissented in part. He agreed with the Court that the religious scruples of the Amish are entitled to respect.27 He disagreed with the Court's conclusion that the parents' religious beliefs should prevail over the wishes of the children.28
The Court's analysis assumes that the only interests at stake are those of the parents and the State.29 The children also have interests that must be considered.30 The Amish children may wish to attend high school and pursue a different way of life.31
He would remand the case for a determination of the wishes of the children.32
Whether the Amish religious faith and their mode of life are inseparable and interdependent such that enforcement of the compulsory attendance law would burden the free exercise of religion?33
To receive protection under the Free Exercise Clause, claims must be rooted in religious belief rather than purely secular considerations, and the religious faith and mode of life must be shown to be inseparable and interdependent, with the law imposing a severe and inescapable burden on religious practice.34
Yes. The established facts establish that the Amish religious faith and mode of life are inseparable and interdependent. The record shows their beliefs date to 16th-century Swiss Anabaptists, pervade daily life through the Ordnung, require separation from worldly influences, and mandate informal learning through doing on the family farm. Compulsory high school attendance would gravely endanger the free exercise by threatening assimilation or migration of the community.35
The Amish faith and mode of life are inseparable, and the law burdens free exercise.36
Whether the State's interest in requiring compulsory formal education to age 16 is of sufficient magnitude to override the Amish claims for exemption under the Free Exercise Clause?37
Even a legitimate and strong state interest in universal compulsory education is not absolute. It must yield when it imposes a severe burden on free exercise unless the State shows with particularity that the interest is of sufficient magnitude to override the religious claim and is not otherwise served.38
No. The State's interest in compulsory education to age 16, while strong for preparing citizens for political participation and self-sufficiency, is not of sufficient magnitude to override the Amish claims. The established facts show the Amish have functioned effectively as a self-sufficient community for more than 200 years with their alternative education. The State presented no specific evidence of adverse effects from an exemption. The Amish children already receive basic education through eighth grade.39
The State's interest is not of sufficient magnitude to override the claims.40
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Brennan And Stewart
Justice White joined the Court but stressed the substantial nature of the state's interest in education as perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.41 He noted that a different result might follow if the Amish sought exemption from all schooling at any time or if the sincerity of their beliefs were contested.42 He concluded that on this record the interest does not outweigh the Amish practice because eight years of education largely satisfies the State's goals of preparing children for life and the sincerity of the religious policy is uncontested.43
The deviation from the compulsory-education law is relatively slight after eight years of basic education.44
Whether the record establishes that the Amish alternative of informal vocational education through learning-by-doing on the family farm adequately prepares their children for life in the Amish community?45
The adequacy of an alternative mode of education is measured by its capacity to prepare children for life in their community. Persuasive expert testimony and historical evidence of community success can establish that the alternative serves the interests advanced by the State.46
Yes. The record establishes that the Amish alternative of informal vocational education through learning-by-doing on the family farm adequately prepares their children. Expert testimony from Dr. Hostetler and Dr. Erickson described the system as ideal or superior for Amish roles. The Amish maintain an excellent record as law-abiding and self-sufficient members of society. The community has survived and prospered for more than 200 years under this approach.47
The record establishes the adequacy of the Amish alternative education.48
Whether the record contains evidence that any of the children involved expressed a desire to attend high school against their parents' wishes?49
When evaluating free exercise claims involving parents and children, the absence of evidence that children wish to attend school contrary to parental wishes means the case does not present a conflict between parental and child interests that would require separate analysis.50
No. The established facts show there is no evidence in the record that any of the children in this case expressed a desire to attend high school against their parents' wishes. The only child who testified confirmed her decision aligned with her religious beliefs and parental wishes. The State did not try the case on any theory of conflict with the children's desires.51
The record contains no such evidence of children's contrary wishes.52
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Douglas dissented in part on this point, arguing that the children's interests must be considered separately and that the matter should be remanded for hearings on the wishes of the children.53 He maintained that if any child wished to attend high school and was mature enough, the State should enforce the law as to that child, as the future of the student rather than the parents is at stake.54 The record in this case does not show whether the children have been given an opportunity to express their views.55