​

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

“The protection of the Constitution extends to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue. The protection of the Constitution extends to the teacher who engages in teaching as well as to the pupil who receives instruction, and to parents who provide it as well as to children who learn.”

​

• Holding: Struck down a Nebraska law banning the teaching of foreign languages in schools, recognizing parents’ rights under the Due Process Clause to control their children’s education.

• Significance: Early acknowledgment that liberty includes parents’ authority over educational content for their children.

 

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

​

• Holding: Invalidated an Oregon law requiring public school attendance only, affirming parents’ right to send children to private or religious schools.

• Significance: Established that the state cannot monopolize education and parents retain primary responsibility for their children's education.

​

Want to learn more about Pierce v. Society of Sisters? View a brief historical video commemorating the 100th anniversary of the ruling below! 

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​

 

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

“The values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society. The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children.”

​

• Holding: Held that Amish parents could remove their children from public school after eighth grade on religious grounds.

• Significance: Reinforced parental rights when educational requirements conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs.

 

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

“The program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals… who, in turn, direct the aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice.”

​

• Holding: Upheld a public school voucher program permitting parents to use state funds at private schools, including religious ones.

• Significance: Validated school choice models that allow parental selection and include religious schools without Establishment Clause violations.

 

Carson v. Makin (2022)

“The prohibition on status-based discrimination under the Free Exercise Clause is not a permission to engage in use-based discrimination... A state need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools because they provide religious instruction.”

​

• Holding: Struck down Maine’s prohibition on using tuition assistance for religious schools, affirming that such programs must include religious options if they include any private schools.

• Significance: Expanding the principle from Espinoza, it emphasizes that once the state engages in private school funding, it cannot discriminate by excluding religious-based education.

 

Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025)

“A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses “a very real threat of undermining” the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 218 (1972). And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.

​

• Holding: Determined that a Maryland school district's refusal to notify parents and allow opt-outs from LGBTQ-themed storybooks unconstitutionally burdened their free exercise of religion—granting a preliminary injunction. 

• Significance: Marked a significant extension of parental authority over public-school curriculum, reinforcing that parents must be notified and permitted to opt their children out of instruction that conflicts with their religious convictions.