Meyer v. Nebraska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meyer v. Nebraska
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 23, 1923 Decided June 4, 1923
Full case name: Meyer v. State of Nebraska Citations: 262 U.S. 390; 43 S. Ct. 625; 67 L. Ed. 1042; 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2655; 29 A.L.R. 1446 Prior history: Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska
Holding
The Court held that a 1919 Nebraska law prohibiting the teaching of modern foreign languages to grade school children unconstitutionally violated the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice: William Howard Taft Associate Justices: Joseph McKenna, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Willis Van Devanter, James Clark McReynolds, Louis Brandeis, George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, Edward Terry Sanford
Case opinions
Majority by: McReynolds Joined by: Taft, McKenna, Van Devanter, Brandeis, Butler, Sanford Dissent by: Holmes Dissent by: Sutherland
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)^[1], was a U.S. Supreme Court case which held that a 1919 Nebraska law prohibiting the teaching of modern foreign languages to grade school children unconstitutionally violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In his decision, Justice McReynolds, stated that although the state "may do much . . . in order to improve the quality of its citizens," the statute exceeded "the limitations on the power of the state and conflict[ed] with rights assured" to Meyer. The "liberty" protected by the Due Process clause "denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint", but also included "those privileges . . . essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Meyer, along with Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 269 U.S. 510, is often cited as one of the first instances in which the U.S. Supreme Court engaged in substantive due process in the area of civil liberties. The case was later cited in Tinker v. Des Moines, which also dealt with schools. [1]

In the fictional drama The West Wing the case was mentioned as an example of the Supreme Court ruling in an activist manner to preserve democratic freedoms promoted, but not explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution. Labelling the case in this way is a matter of opinion. The mention occurred in season 6, episode 14: "The Wake Up Call."

[edit] References

1. ^ 262 U.S. 390 (Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com)