West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

Last updated

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 11, 1943
Decided June 14, 1943
Full case nameWest Virginia State Board of Education, et al. v. Walter Barnette, et al.
Citations319 U.S. 624 ( more )
63 S. Ct. 1178; 87  L. Ed. 1628; 1943  U.S. LEXIS 490; 147  A.L.R. 674
Case history
PriorInjunction granted, 47  F. Supp. 251 (S.D. W. Va. 1942)
Holding
The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits public schools from forcing students to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance. United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone
Associate Justices
Owen Roberts  · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson  · Wiley B. Rutledge
Case opinions
MajorityJackson, joined by Stone, Black, Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge
ConcurrenceBlack, Douglas
ConcurrenceMurphy
DissentFrankfurter
DissentRoberts, Reed
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV; W. Va. Code § 1734 (1941)
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment protects students from being compelled to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. [1] [2]

Contents

Barnette overruled a 1940 decision on the same issue, Minersville School District v. Gobitis , in which the Supreme Court ruled that such laws were valid because they had been passed by elected legislators. [3] The Barnette ruling was a significant victory for Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religion forbade them from saluting or pledging to symbols, including those of political institutions. [4] The ruling is also influential for its focus on freedom of speech principles rather than freedom of religion. [5]

Background

In the 1930s, the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, began objecting to state laws requiring school students to salute the flag as a means of instilling patriotism, and in 1936 he declared that baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who saluted the flag were breaking their covenant with God and were committing idolatry, per a passage in the Book of Exodus. [6]

In several reported incidents during this period, children of Jehovah's Witnesses had been expelled from schools for refusing to salute the American flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance. [7] One such expulsion resulted in the Supreme Court case Minersville School District v. Gobitis in 1940, in which the High Court sided with school districts and advised dissenting parents to try to change procedures via standard political processes. [3]

In 1942, the West Virginia Board of Education passed a regulation requiring schoolchildren to salute the American flag; recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was also required. [8] Failure to comply was considered "insubordination" and dealt with by expulsion from school; the expelled student would then be considered a delinquent, and their parents could be fined up to $50 (about $1000 in 2020 dollars) and jailed up to thirty days. [9]

Marie and Gathie Barnett (whose surname was spelled incorrectly in the court documents) were Jehovah's Witnesses attending Slip Hill Grade School near Charleston, and were instructed by their father not to salute the flag or recite the pledge. They were expelled for their refusal. Their parents continued to send the girls to school each day, only for the school to send them back home. [10]

The Barnett family filed suit in the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, alleging that the regulation violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the freedoms of speech and religion under the First Amendment. The District Court enjoined enforcement against students who refused to participate in the daily pledge. Due to the case's constitutional implications, the West Virginia School Board appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court. [1] [11]

Arguments

At the Supreme Court, the School Board argued that the matter was specific to West Virginia law and that the Barnetts had raised no substantial federal question. The Board's argument relied upon the Gobitis precedent. [1] The Barnetts' attorney, Hayden Covington, referenced the frequent persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses via statutes like that in West Virginia, and argued that the Gobitis precedent should be overturned because it enabled states to pass discriminatory laws. [12]

The American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union filed amicus curiae briefs arguing that Gobitis was bad law and should be overruled. [12]

Decision of the court

Students pledging to the American flag with the Bellamy salute, 1941 Students pledging allegiance to the American flag with the Bellamy salute.jpg
Students pledging to the American flag with the Bellamy salute, 1941

The court, in a 6–3 decision delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, held that it was unconstitutional for public schools to compel students to salute the flag. It thus overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis just three years earlier, finding that the flag salute was "a form of utterance" and "a primitive but effective means of communicating ideas", and therefore was speech for which the First Amendment applied. The court held that any "compulsory unification of opinion" was antithetical to free speech values. In Jackson's words: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." [1]

Jackson's opinion intricately refuted the arguments that had been made in the Gobitis precedent. First, Jackson rejected the previous court's holding that the American flag was a national symbol worthy of veneration for that reason alone, stating that symbols are merely the prelude to speech, and that "a person gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it, and what is one man's comfort and inspiration is another's jest and scorn." Second, Jackson rejected the holding that flag-saluting ceremonies were an appropriate way to build "cohesive sentiment" for national unity, warning that "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." [1]

On the Gobitis holding that those who disagreed with a school board's regulation should try to change it through standard political processes, Jackson argued that the conflict at issue was between government authority and the individual, and that the Founding Fathers intended the Bill of Rights to protect minority rights from the whims of a majority. Jackson wrote: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts." [1]

Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas wrote a concurring opinion in which they expanded upon the futility of pledges and oaths as means to build patriotism. "Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions." [1]

Dissenting opinion

The Justice who had written the Gobitis ruling in 1940 – Felix Frankfurter – strongly disagreed with how that precedent was being overturned in the Barnette ruling. In his dissenting opinion, Frankfurter reinforced his holding in Gobitis that those who disagree with a law should attempt to change it through the political process, rather than break that law due to religious conscience. "Otherwise each individual could set up his own censor against obedience to laws conscientiously deemed for the public good by those whose business it is to make laws." Thus, Frankfurter believed that the Barnette majority overstepped its authority in striking down the West Virginia law, which had been passed by elected legislators. [1]

Frankfurter's dissent was written from the perspective of his own Jewish roots, showing sympathy for other persecuted religious minorities but taking an impartial legal and unconstitutional view of the dispute, and exercising judicial restraint. Fellow Justices Owen Roberts and Frank Murphy advised Frankfurter to tone down the personal dimensions of his dissent, but he refused. [13]

Impact

The Supreme Court's ruling Barnette is considered a crucial precedent on the freedoms established by the Bill of Rights and the risk of governments restricting them via discriminatory laws. [10] [14] It is considered to be a formative precedent on not just freedom of religion; [15] [16] but also on the matter of compelled speech, as governments attempt to coerce citizens into taking oaths when they would not do so under their own free will, particularly for religious reasons. [17] [18]

In a 2006 commemorative event cosponsored by the Justice Robert H. Jackson Center and the Supreme Court Historical Society, Supreme Court law clerks who had been present at the Barnette ruling appeared on a panel with Marie and Gathie Barnett. Gathie noted that – just as she and her sister had been in 1942 – her son had later been sent to the principal's office for not saluting the flag. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pledge of Allegiance</span> Loyalty oath to the flag and republic of the U.S.

The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic recited verse that promises allegiance to the flag of the United States and the republic of the United States of America. The first version, with a text different from the one used at present, was written in 1885 by Captain George Thatcher Balch, a Union Army officer in the Civil War who later authored a book on how to teach patriotism to children in public schools. In 1892, Francis Bellamy revised Balch's verse as part of a magazine promotion surrounding the World's Columbian Exposition, which celebrated the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' arrival in the Americas. Bellamy, the circulation manager for The Youth's Companion magazine, helped persuade then-president Benjamin Harrison to institute Columbus Day as a national holiday and lobbied Congress for a national school celebration of the day. The magazine sent leaflets containing part of Bellamy's Pledge of Allegiance to schools across the country and on October 21, 1892, over 10,000 children recited the verse together.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Minersville, Pennsylvania</span> Borough in Pennsylvania, United States

Minersville is a borough in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, United States. Anthracite coal deposits are plentiful in the region. The population was 4,388 at the 2020 census.

Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States restricting the religious rights of public school students under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that public schools could compel students—in this case, Jehovah's Witnesses—to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance despite the students' religious objections to these practices. This decision led to increased persecution of Witnesses in the United States. The Supreme Court overruled this decision three years later in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Felix Frankfurter</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1939 to 1962

Felix Frankfurter was an Austrian-born American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1939 until 1962, during which he was an advocate of judicial restraint.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's kingdom is a literal government in heaven, ruled by Jesus Christ and 144,000 "spirit-anointed" Christians drawn from the earth, which they associate with Jesus' reference to a "new covenant". The kingdom is viewed as the means by which God will accomplish his original purpose for the earth, transforming it into a paradise without sickness or death. It is said to have been the focal point of Jesus' ministry on earth. They believe the kingdom was established in heaven in 1914, and that Jehovah's Witnesses serve as the kingdom's representatives on earth.

The beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses have engendered controversy throughout their history. Consequently, the denomination has been opposed by local governments, communities, and religious groups. Many Christian denominations consider the interpretations and doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses heretical, and some professors of religion have classified the denomination as a cult.

The Patriotic Oath is one of two national pledges of the Philippines, the other being the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. It is commonly recited at flag ceremonies of schools—especially public schools—immediately after singing the Philippine national anthem but before reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States has been criticized on several grounds. Its use in government funded schools has been the most controversial, as critics contend that a government-sanctioned endorsement of religion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Arguments against the pledge include that the pledge itself is incompatible with democracy and freedom, that it is a form of nationalistic indoctrination, that pledges of allegiance are features of current and former totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany, and that the pledge was written to sell flags.

Olin Richmond Moyle was legal counsel for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society from 1935 to 1939. He helped represent Jehovah's Witnesses in two cases before the United States Supreme Court, which set new precedents on First Amendment freedoms. A dispute with Watch Tower Society president J. F. Rutherford led to Moyle's expulsion from the religion. Moyle later sued the Watch Tower Society for libel over an article in its magazine, The Watchtower. In his later years, he became one of the leaders of the United Israel World Union, a movement that sought to convert people, particularly Christians, to Judaism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zechariah Chafee</span> American lawyer (1885–1957)

Zechariah Chafee Jr. was an American judicial philosopher and civil rights advocate, described as "possibly the most important First Amendment scholar of the first half of the twentieth century" by Richard Primus. Chafee's avid defense of freedom of speech led to Senator Joseph McCarthy calling him "dangerous" to America.

Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a law prohibiting the distribution of handbills from door to door violated the First Amendment rights of a Jehovah's Witness, specifically their freedom of speech. The ruling was 5-4 and deemed trespassing laws a better fit for the town imposing the ordinance.

Jones v. City of Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (1942), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a statute prohibiting the sale of books without a license was constitutional because it covered not a religious ritual but only individuals who engaged in a commercial activity.

Throughout the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs, doctrines, policies and practices have engendered controversy and opposition from governments, communities, and religious groups. Many Christian denominations consider their doctrines to be heretical, and some religious leaders have labeled Jehovah's Witnesses a cult. Members of the denomination have also met with objection from governments for refusing to serve in the military, particularly in times of war. Many individuals consider their door-to-door preaching to be intrusive. These issues have led to persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in various countries, including the United States.

Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their license plates when the state motto was offensive to their moral convictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stone Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1941 to 1946

The Stone Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1941 to 1946, when Harlan F. Stone served as Chief Justice of the United States. Stone succeeded the retiring Charles Evans Hughes in 1941, and served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Fred Vinson was nominated and confirmed as Stone's replacement. He was the fourth chief justice to have previously served as an associate justice and the second to have done so without a break in tenure. Presiding over the country during World War II, the Stone Court delivered several important war-time rulings, such as in Ex parte Quirin, where it upheld the President's power to try Nazi saboteurs captured on American soil by military tribunals. It also supported the federal government's policy of relocating Japanese Americans into internment camps.

<i>Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent</i> Freedom of religion court case in the Philippines

Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent (219 SCRA 256, G.R. No. 95770 et al. was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines concerning freedom of religion in schools. It involved 25 pupils from the town of Asturias and 43 pupils from the towns of Daanbantayan, Pinamungajan, Taburan and Carcar, all in the province of Cebu, who were Jehovah's Witnesses expelled for refusing to sing the national anthem, salute the flag and recite the patriotic pledge in school as required by law. This ruling overturned the court's previous ruling on the same subject in Gerona v. Secretary of Education.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (S. Ct., 1943).
  2. ↑ "West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette | Constitution Center". National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. Retrieved December 10, 2023.
  3. 1 2 Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (S. Ct., 1940).
  4. ↑ Barringer Gordon, Sarah (January 27, 2011). "How Jehovah's Witnesses Became Unlikely Champions of Religious Freedom". HistoryNet. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
  5. ↑ Johnson, John W. (2001). Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis. p. 953. ISBN   978-0-415-93756-6.
  6. ↑ Exodus 20, 4-5: "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."
  7. ↑ Hanstein, Woody (January 16, 2013). "From the Bulldog's Desk: A lesson on patriotism from a 9-year-old boy". The Daily Bulldog.
  8. ↑ Peters, Shawn (2000). Judging Jehovah's Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution. University Press of Kansas. p. 245. ISBN   978-0-7006-1182-9.
  9. ↑ "4 U.S. Code § 4 - Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved November 18, 2020.
  10. 1 2 3 "Recollections of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette". St. John's Law Review. 81 (4): 770–771. Fall 2007.
  11. ↑ Hudson, David (December 28, 2009). "Woman in Barnette reflects on the famous flag-salute case". First Amendment Center.
  12. 1 2 Manwaring (1953). "Render Unto Caesar" . The Scientific Monthly. 76 (1): 54. Bibcode:1953SciMo..76...54H.[ full citation needed ]
  13. ↑ Danzig, Richard (February 1984). "Justice Frankfurter's Opinions in the Flag Salute Cases: Blending Logic and Psychologic in Constitutional Decisionmaking". Stanford Law Review. 36 (3): 675–723. doi:10.2307/1228720. JSTOR   1228720.
  14. ↑ Goldberg, Erica (Spring 2019). ""Good Orthodoxy" and the Legacy of Barnette". FIU Law Review. 13 (4): 639–666. doi: 10.25148/lawrev.13.4.6 – via HeinOnline.
  15. ↑ Pear, R.H. (April 1949). "The U.S. Supreme Court and Religious Freedom". Modern Law Review. 12 (2): 167–182. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1949.tb00118.x – via HeinOnline.
  16. ↑ Wood, Jr., James E. (Winter 1989). "Religious Pluralism and Religious Freedom". Journal of Church and State. 31 (1): 7–14. doi:10.1093/jcs/31.1.7 – via HeinOnline.
  17. ↑ Lakier, Genevieve (Spring 2019). "Not Such a Fixed Star after All: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, and the Changing Meaning of the First Amendment Right Not to Speak". FIU Law Review. 13 (4): 741–764. doi:10.25148/lawrev.13.4.10 – via HeinOnline.
  18. ↑ Tsesis, Alexander (Spring 2022). "Compelled Speech and Proportionality". Indiana Law Journal. 97 (3): 811–840 – via HeinOnline.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.