Today in Supreme Court History: November 7, 1922

11/7/1922: Oregon enacts the Compulsory Education Act.

Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The law led to Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which held a state law that required parents to send their children to public schools was unconstitutional.

There were some exceptions, but a Catholic (Society of Sisters) and military academy (Hill Military Academy) were still greatly affected.

This link provides the opinion as well as a summary of the arguments of both sides:

https://casetext.com/case/pierce-v-society-of-the-sisters-of-the-holy-names-of-jesus-and-mary-same-v-hill-military-academy

The case raised many issues still with us, including questions involving the regulation of corporations, schools, education, and religious liberty. The concern about the "correct" American culture we should teach in schools is a major battleground.

The case was decided on substantive due process grounds (the right to direct the upbringing and education of children). Later, people framed the case as a First Amendment issue or concerning the right to privacy.

The opinion was unanimous. Holmes and Sutherland dissented in an earlier related case involving teaching a foreign language. They did not explain in a separate opinion here why they felt this opinion was appropriate. There are multiple possible grounds, the strongest likely stare decisis.

[ReaderY]

A remarkable aspect of the opinion is its conservative basis, with Justice McReynolds, the court’s most socially conservative member, waxing anout how our society is different from that of Plato’s Republic and parents, not the state, determine how children are raised and the direction of their education.

It’s really remarkanle how the use of this case has morphed over the subsequent century. The protection of the traditional family was still visible in the Griswold v. Connecticut opinion. By Eisenstadt v. Baird, it had morphed into an individual right. Roe created a right NOT to have a child. It was cited to present the family as a flexible, moldable concept and indeed to uproot the tradition that had been cited from Pierce to Griswold as the basis of the right. And today, the line of cases has often been used to justify state intervention against the parents’ wishes and knowledge, for example, to justify having the child get an abortion or sex change surgery against the parents’ will.

Pierce has been turned absolutely on its head, Today it regularly gets cited by advocates of limiting parental rights and expanding state intervention into children’s lives, and letting people with biological relationship override the wishes and will of biological parents, as supporting their case.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This case follows from an earlier one.

Meyer v. Nebraska provided an open-ended view of constitutional liberty:

“Without doubt, it 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.”

The wording offers a variety of life paths that might not be very “conservative” in nature. It spoke of the “right of the individual.” That was not merely a result of later cases.

A right to do something generally includes the right not to do something. The right to speak includes the right not to speak. The right to marry or raise a child includes the right not to marry or have a child.

The case also did not provide absolute power to the parents. For instance, it stated, even “against their parents will,” basic education can be required.

Child welfare laws also did not become extinct. The specific laws were arbitrary, not all laws that limited parental rights.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Sounds reactionary and sexist to me.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (decided November 7, 2000): video poker licenses were not “property” so as to be predicate for prosecution under mail fraud statute (defendants had obtained licenses via applications with fraudulently concealed facts)

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (decided November 7, 1932): in one of the earliest Incorporation decisions, Court holds that Sixth Amendment right to counsel was incorporated by Fourteenth Amendment; black defendants accused of raping white woman on train should have been given court-appointed lawyer and been informed of their right to such (this was the “Scottsboro Boys” case)

The Max Morris v. Curry, 137 U.S. 1 (decided November 7, 1890): person injured on vessel can recover in admiralty suit even if part of the fault was his

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The reach of Powell was later limited before the right to counsel was expanded in Gideon v. Wainwright.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks

[SMP0328]

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (decided November 7, 1932): in one of the earliest Incorporation decisions, Court holds that Sixth Amendment right to counsel was incorporated by Fourteenth Amendment; black defendants accused of raping white woman on train should have been given court-appointed lawyer and been informed of their right to such (this was the “Scottsboro Boys” case)

This case did not incorporate the right to counsel. This was during the time when the Court applied a right mentioned in the Bill of Rights against the States only to the extent such a right was “fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty.” In this case, it was definitely fundamental as this case came straight out of the Jim Crow South and so, without counsel, the defendants were subject to a show trial.

In Betts v. Brady (1942), the Court ruled that a State had to appoint counsel to an indigent defendant only when there were “special circumstances” like those in Powell. Over time, the Justices realized this was too subjective a standard. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Betts was overruled and the right to counsel was fully incorporated against State and local governments.

[Hugh]

A black mark for the history of the state of Oregon.

And why wouldn't Clarence Thomas overrule this decision along with all the other substantive due process decisions he wants to flush down the toilet of a more recent vintage?

The fact that one of the most rancid justices ever, McReynolds, wrote this decision tells you how crazy Justice Thomas' jurisprudence has become.