Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (The State’s interest in promoting compulsory
high school education did not outweigh the free exercise of religion where there was a
demonstrated long-standing, sincere religious belief and the State’s interests were otherwise
met.)
Summary prepared by Janene Eller-Smith
Succinct Summary
Members of two Amish groups were convicted of violating Wisconsin’s compulsory school
attendance law by refusing to send their children to public or private school after eighth grade.
The Amish challenged their convictions, claiming that the compulsory secondary education law
violated the free exercise of their religious beliefs and therefore their First Amendment rights.
The Amish asserted they hold a fundamental belief that salvation requires life in a church
community separate and apart from the world. High school attendance poses a danger to their
religion, way of life, and therefore their own and their children’s salvation. The Amish practice
of having their children complete vocational education consistent with their agrarian life-style
not only supported their Amish religious beliefs and values, but also made them productive
citizens.
The State argued that it had a duty to promote education in order to prepare children to be selfreliant, self-sufficient members of society. Conceding that religious beliefs are protected under
the First Amendment Religion Clauses, the State argued that actions, even if religiously
grounded, are not. The State further argued that the State’s interest in compelling secondary
education was a reasonable and constitutional exercise of its police powers.
The Supreme Court upheld the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, holding that the interrelationship
of the Amish’s beliefs with their mode of life was so paramount and their alternative vocational
education so successful that the Amish’s free exercise rights under the U.S. Constitution
outweighed any interest the State had in promoting compulsory high school education.
Facts of the Case
Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, members of the Old Order Amish religion and Adin Yutzy, a
member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church (hereinafter “the Amish”), were
convicted of violating Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law. The Amish refused to
send their children to school after eighth grade contrary to Wisconsin’s law requiring children to
attend school until age 16 (approximately two years beyond the eighth grade). The Amish
challenged their convictions, asserting that the compulsory secondary education law hampered
the free exercise of their religious beliefs and therefore violated their First Amendment rights.
The trial court sided with the State and entered convictions against the Amish. The Circuit court
affirmed the convictions. The Wisconsin State Supreme Court reversed, finding that that the
compulsory attendance law violated the Amish’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the
First Amendment.
Wisconsin v. Yoder
Page 1
Issue Presented to the Court
The Court addressed whether Wisconsin’s interest in promoting compulsory high school
education outweighed the Amish’s free exercise of their religion under the First Amendment in
remaining apart from the world.
Finding and Conclusion
At trial, the Amish provided ample evidence of not only the sincerity of their beliefs, but also
how their beliefs pervade their entire way of life. Their most fundamental belief is that salvation
requires life in a church community operating separate and apart from the world and worldly
influence. High school attendance poses a real danger to this belief system, placing Amish
children in an environment hostile to Amish values and beliefs. After eighth grade, Amish
children embark on vocational training consistent with their agrarian life style. The Amish
demonstrated the success of their community in preparing their high school age children to be
productive members of the church and the at-large communities.
Conceding that religious beliefs are absolutely protected under the First Amendment Religion
Clauses, the State argued that actions, even if religiously grounded, are not. The State
acknowledged the Amish’s sincere beliefs, but argued that the State’s interest in establishing and
maintaining a universal formal education system overrode the Amish’s right to the free exercise
of their religion. The State argued that education is necessary to prepare citizens to contribute to
society and that without compulsory education, Amish children who choose to leave their
religious community would be ill-equipped to make their way in the outside world.
Invoking a balancing test, the Court considered whether the compulsory education law imposed a
substantial burden on the practice of religion, and if it did, whether it was needed to serve a
compelling government interest. The Court found that the impact of the compulsory attendance
law on the Amish practice of their religion was not only severe, but inescapable, because they
would be required to perform acts at odds with fundamental tenants of their religious beliefs.
The Court held that Wisconsin’s compulsory secondary education law violated the Amish’s right
of free exercise under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court was careful to indicate
that courts must “move with great circumspection in performing the sensitive and delicate task of
weighing a State’s legitimate social concern when faced with religious claims for exemption
from generally applicable education requirements.” Id at 235. In this case, the Court pointed
out that the Amish had demonstrated the historical success of their community and the
interrelationship of belief with their mode of life. They had also demonstrated that their
alternative mode of vocational education adequately addressed the State’s interests.
The State had also asserted that it had a duty, acting as parens patriae, to extend the benefit of
secondary education to children regardless of the wishes of their parents, arguing that the
parents’ desire to “foster ignorance” in their children to protect their community and way of life
Wisconsin v. Yoder
Page 2
was sufficient justification for the State’s exercise of its police powers. However, because at
issue in the case were the religious rights of Amish fathers, the Court refused to address the
resolution of possible competing interest of parents, children, and the State. The State had argued
from the outset that it was empowered to apply its compulsory-attendance laws to all parents,
including the Amish—regardless of the wishes of the child.
The dissent felt that the Court should have addressed the issues of the children’s rights as it was
the children’s future at stake.
Wisconsin v. Yoder
Page 3