About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

74 Tex. L. Rev. 1237 (1995-1996)
Wisconsin v. Yoder and Religious Liberty

handle is hein.journals/tlr74 and id is 1257 raw text is: Wisconsin v. Yoder and Religious Liberty James D. Gordon III* Wisconsin v. Yoder' was the high water mark of religious liberty under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In Yoder, the Supreme Court protected the right of the Old Order Amish to practice their religion free of criminal prosecution. The Amish reject worldly values and make their living largely through agriculture. They try to live the early, simple, Christian life de- emphasizing material success, rejecting the competitive spirit, and seeking to insulate themselves from the modem world.2 The Amish provide for- mal schooling for their children through the eighth grade. However, the values taught in public high schools contradict Amish religious beliefs. High school emphasizes intellectual accomplishments, competitiveness, and worldly success. Amish society emphasizes a life of 'goodness,' rather than a life of intellect; wisdom, rather than technical knowledge; community welfare, rather than competition; and separation from, rather than integration with, contemporary worldly society.' Moreover, high school involves peer pressure and takes Amish young people away from their community during a critical formative period of their lives.' The uncontradicted expert testimony was that compulsory high school atten- dance would ultimately result in the destruction of the Old Order Amish community.5 Wisconsin prosecuted Amish parents for violating a state law that required them to send their children to school until age sixteen. In deciding the case, the Supreme Court applied the compelling interest test. Under the test, the Free Exercise Clause requires an exemption from a law burdening the free exercise of religion unless the law is necessary to the accomplishment of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.6 Yoder used a different verbal * Professor of Law, Brigham Young University Law School. B.A. 1977, Brigham Young University; J.D. 1980, University of California-Berkeley. I thank Fred Gedicks for his valuable comments. 1. 406 U.S. 205 (1972). 2. Id. at 210. 3. Id. at211. 4. Id. 5. Id. at 209, 212. 6. See, e.g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406-07 (1963). 1237

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most