8/10/2019 Meyer vs State of Nebraska

1/2

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)Published: 2-08-2012, 13:23

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)Meyer v. Nebraska addressed the constitutionality of a state law that prohibited the teaching

of any foreign languages in any private, denominational, parochial, or public school to any

child who had not completed the eighth grade. The petitioner, an instructor at a private

school, was tried and convicted of unlawfully teaching German to a ten-year-old child. The

statute at issue provided that [n]o person, individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private,

denominational, parochial or public school, teach any subject to any person in any language

other than the English language (262 U.S. at 396). A conviction under this statute would

result in a fine or confinement in a jail for up to thirty days. Enacted in the wake of World

War I, the apparent purpose of the statute was to prevent the inculcation of ideas and

sentiments foreign to the best interests of the United States.

The Court considered whether the statute, as construed and applied, unreasonably infringedon the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. In finding the statute

unconstitutional, the Court first considered the meaning of liberty. Liberty denotes not

merely the 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, and

generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly

pursuit of happiness (262 U.S. at 398). Thus, at issue were the right of teachers to teach,

the right of students to acquire desired knowledge, and the right of parents to control the

education of their children.

The due-process doctrine established by the Court holds that this liberty may not be

interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which

is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the

State to effect (262 U.S. at 399400). Indeed, as the Court explained, mere knowledge of a

foreign language cannot reasonably be regarded as harmful. It recognized that the state may

go very far in order to improve the quality of its citizens, physically,mentally and morally,

including prescribing a school curriculum, compelling school attendance, and requiring that

instruction be given in English. The Court nevertheless stated that the fundamental rights of

the individual must be respected (262 U.S. at 401). While the states purported purpose

universal understanding of English and the promotion of civic developmentmay be

desirable, it cannot be promoted by prohibited means.

Meyer v. Nebraska is significant for many reasons. It was the first time the Supreme Court

invoked the substantive due-process doctrine to protect noneconomic personal liberties. In

so doing, it opened the door for the recognition of numerous other personal liberties and

paved the way for the process of incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth

Amendment (Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666, 1925). Meyer was the first case to

recognize parents due-process liberty interest in raising and educating their children and it

continues to be followed today (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 63, 2000; the liberty

8/10/2019 Meyer vs State of Nebraska

2/2

interest at issue in this casethe interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their

childrenis perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this

Court). Along with Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), Meyer set the precedent

for the right to privacy cases beginning in the 1960sfor example, Griswold v. Connecticut

(381 U.S. 479, 1965, penumbra or zone of privacy includes married couples right to use

contraceptives) and Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113, 1973, invalidating antiabortion statute onright to privacy grounds).

Not only is the Meyer case significant for its farreaching impact on personal liberties, but it

also continues to be relevant in cases involving parental rights and education. The Supreme

Court continues to recognize that the state may control the classroom curriculum, subject to

certain constitutional limits (for example, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 1968,

invalidating a law prohibiting the teaching of Darwinian theory). Indeed, it remains the only

Supreme Court case involving school curriculum, other than cases involving issues of

religion, such as school prayer and Bible recitations.

EMILY R. FROIMSON

References and Further Reading

Ross, William G., A Judicial Janus: Meyer v. Nebraska in Historical Perspective,

University of Cincinnati Law Review 57 (1988): 125204.

Cases and Statutes Cited

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925)

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)