Meyer vs Nebraska
property without due process of law.” YES
Facts:
A state law forbidding, under penalty, the
teaching in any private, denominational,
parochial or public school, of any modern
language, other than English, to any child who
has not attained and successfully passed the
eighth grade, invades the liberty guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment and exceeds the
power of the State.
The plaintiff was tried and convicted in the
District Court for Hamilton County, Nebraska,
under an information which charged that, on
May 25, 1920, while an instructor in Zion
Parochial School, he unlawfully taught the
subject of reading in the German language to
Raymond Parpart, a ten-year-old child, who had
not attained and successfully passed the eighth
grade.
The Supreme Court of the State affirmed the
judgment of conviction. 107 Neb. 657. It
declared the offense charged and established
was "the direct and intentional teaching of the
German language as a distinct subject to a child
who had not passed the eighth grade," in the
parochial school maintained by Zion Evangelical
Lutheran Congregation, a collection of Biblical
stories being used therefor. And it held that the
statute forbidding this did not conflict with the
Fourteenth Amendment, but was a valid
exercise of the police power.
Plaintiff claimed that education was a
fundamental liberty interest that must be
protected. He further claimed that the statute
infringed the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff
by the 14th amendment.
Issue:
Whether or not the statute, as construed and
applied, unreasonably infringes the liberty
guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the
Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “No
state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or
Held:
The statute that prohibits the teaching of foreign
languages to students who have not yet passed
the 8th grade is unconstitutional because it
infringes on the liberty interests of the plaintiff
and fails to reasonably relate to any end within
the competency of the state. The 14th
Amendment protects individuals from arbitrary
or unreasonable state action impairing life,
liberty, or property interests.
The right to practice the profession of the
plaintiff is a right protected by the amendment.
The stated purpose of restriction on the right to
teach such foreign languages was that children
who know only English through grade eight will
be better citizens of the US. However, because
there is no clear danger to the state that stems
from younger children studying foreign
languages, the reason given for the restriction is
unreasonable and arbitrary, therefore,
insufficient to support the limitation on the right
to teach. Nonetheless, the protection of the
Constitution extends to those who speak other
languages. Education is a fundamental liberty
interest that must be protected, and mere
knowledge of the German language cannot be
reasonably regarded as harmful. Hence, the
court ruled that the judgement by the court
below is reversed and the cause remanded for
further proceedings not inconsistent with this
opinion.