Pierce v. Society of Sisters
The Court struck down an Oregon law that required nearly all children to attend public school, ruling that it unlawfully interfered with parents' right to choose private or religious schooling and threatened to destroy private schools' businesses.
The decision affirms that parents, not the state, have the primary right to decide how their children are educated, limiting how far a state can go in standardizing education through compulsory public schooling.
How it got here: A three-judge federal district court granted preliminary injunctions against enforcement of the law; the state officials appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Two private Oregon schools — a Catholic order running primary schools and orphanages, and a military academy for boys — sued state officials to block a voter-approved law requiring nearly all children ages eight to sixteen to attend public school. Both schools argued the law would destroy their enrollment, business, and property by cutting off their supply of students.
The question before the Court
Could Oregon force parents to send their children to public schools instead of letting them attend private or religious schools?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that Oregon's compulsory public education law unreasonably interfered with parents' constitutional liberty to choose how their children are educated. Relying on its earlier recognition that parents have the right to direct their children's upbringing, the Court held the state cannot force families to use public schools exclusively when private and religious alternatives pose no harm to students or the public.
The Court affirmed injunctions blocking enforcement of the law, protecting the private schools' businesses and property from destruction caused by losing their patrons. It emphasized that a state has no general power to standardize children through public instruction alone, though it left states free to regulate and set minimum standards for all schools, public and private.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Private and religious schools remain free to operate and compete for students without a state mandate pushing families into public schools alone. Parents keep the ability to choose religious, military, or other alternative schooling for their children, and schools can rely on long-term contracts with families without fear a state could effectively outlaw their business model.
What changes now
The preliminary injunctions against enforcing the Oregon law are affirmed, meaning the state cannot compel children to attend only public schools while the law remains unenforceable under this ruling. Private and religious schools in Oregon may continue operating without threat of losing their student base to compulsory public schooling. The decision left intact the state's separate power to reasonably regulate, inspect, and set standards for all schools, public and private.
What this does not decide
The Court made clear it was not questioning the state's power to reasonably regulate all schools, require attendance at some school, set teacher qualifications, mandate certain subjects, or bar teaching that is harmful to the public welfare — only the requirement of public school attendance to the exclusion of all private alternatives.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court recognized that although corporations cannot personally claim the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, they can claim protection for their business and property, which were threatened with destruction by the law's compulsion of patrons.
- Relying on its recent decision recognizing parents' liberty to direct their children's upbringing and education, the Court held that a law forcing children into public schools only unreasonably interferes with that parental liberty because it has no reasonable relation to any legitimate state purpose.
- The Court explained that the government does not have a general power to standardize children by forcing them to accept instruction only from public teachers, since parents and guardians bear the primary responsibility and right to prepare their children for life.
- The Court found the schools' interest in retaining patrons was not the ordinary commercial interest a business has in customers, but a direct and immediate interest protected against arbitrary state interference, since the injunctions sought only blocked an unlawful exercise of power, not a legitimate one.
- Because the threatened harm to the schools' business and property was present and real rather than speculative, the Court concluded the suits were not premature and that equity could act to prevent the impending injury before the law took effect.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Meyer v. Nebraska (262 U.S. 390)
The Court relied on this case's doctrine protecting parents' liberty to direct their children's upbringing and education.