Meyer v. Nebraska
Meyer v. Nebraska is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1923 that addressed the issue of educational freedom and the rights of parents to determine their children's education. The case arose when the Nebraska legislature enacted a law prohibiting the teaching of modern non-English languages, such as German, in schools prior to the eighth grade. A teacher named Meyer, who was instructing German at a Lutheran school, was convicted for violating this law. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled by a 7-2 vote that the statute infringed upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, emphasizing that this amendment protects essential liberties, including the right to acquire knowledge and raise children.
The Court described the law as arbitrary and lacking a legitimate governmental purpose, thus establishing a significant precedent for the protection of individual rights in education. Dissenting opinions, notably from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, emphasized the state's interest in promoting a common language. Despite the dissent, Meyer v. Nebraska has continued to influence constitutional interpretations, particularly regarding privacy rights and parental authority in education. This case highlights the balance between state interests and individual freedoms, reflecting ongoing societal debates about education and language rights.
Meyer v. Nebraska
Date: June 4, 1923
Citation: 262 U.S. 390
Issue: Parental rights
Significance: The Supreme Court first applied the doctrine of substantive due process to strike down a law for infringing upon a noneconomic liberty.
Shortly after World War I, the Nebraska legislature passed a statute that prohibited schools from teaching any modern non-English language to children before the eighth grade. Meyer, who taught German in a Lutheran school, was convicted of disobeying the law. By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice James C. McReynolds explained that the amendment protected long-recognized liberties such as the right to marry, to acquire knowledge, and to raise children. The law was “arbitrary” and “without reasonable relation” to a legitimate governmental purpose. In dissent, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, having often criticized the use of substantive due process to protect a freedom of contract, argued that the state had a reasonable interest in promoting a common language. Meyer was never overturned, and forty years later, it became an important precedent in the development of a constitutional right of privacy.
