Facts
- Oregon voters adopted a 1922 Compulsory Education Act requiring most children ages 8–16 to attend public school in their district; noncompliance was a misdemeanor.
- The Act eliminated the prior option of satisfying compulsory attendance through certain private schools and was aimed at ending parochial and other private schooling for the covered ages.
- The Society of Sisters (operating Catholic schools and related institutions) and Hill Military Academy (a private military school) alleged the Act would destroy their schools by forcing withdrawal and deterring enrollment before the law’s effective date.
- Both schools sued Oregon’s governor and other enforcement officials in federal district court to enjoin enforcement on federal constitutional grounds.
- A three-judge district court issued preliminary injunctions restraining enforcement threats and actions; the state appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether requiring children ages 8–16 to attend public school only unconstitutionally interferes with parents’ and guardians’ liberty to direct the upbringing and education of their children under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Whether private school corporations have a sufficient property and business interest to challenge the statute and obtain equitable relief.
- Whether pre-enforcement injunctive relief is available when the statute’s effective date is in the future but present effects threaten irreparable harm.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the injunctions against enforcement of the Act.
- The Court held the Act unreasonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct children’s education, violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court held the schools had a direct and immediate interest because the Act threatened destruction of their businesses and diminished the value of their property.
- The Court held the suits were not premature because threatened injury from an unconstitutional statute may be present and irreparable before the statute becomes operative.
- The Court recognized broad state authority to regulate education (including compulsory attendance at some school and reasonable regulation of schools), but concluded Oregon’s public-school-only mandate exceeded permissible regulation.
Legal Principles
- The Fourteenth Amendment protects parental and guardian liberty to direct the upbringing and education of children; a state may not compel attendance at public schools only as a means of standardizing children.
- A state may require school attendance and may reasonably regulate both public and private schools through inspection, supervision, and requirements for teachers and essential subjects, consistent with public welfare.
- Corporations may seek injunctive relief when unconstitutional state action threatens direct injury to their property and business, including threatened destruction of an ongoing educational enterprise.
- Pre-enforcement injunctions may issue when threatened injury from an unconstitutional statute is present and real before the statute’s effective date and would become irreparable if relief were delayed.
Conclusion
The Court held that Oregon could regulate education and require attendance at school, but it could not force children to attend public schools only; that compulsion violated the Fourteenth Amendment liberty of parents and guardians and warranted pre-enforcement injunctive relief sought by private schools facing serious property and business harm.