Societies, Education, or Personal Beliefs: Religion versus Law

Topics: Constitutional Law | Civil Rights & Civil Liberties | First Amendment

The Central Question

Is it possible to live in modern society while keeping your beliefs intact and unaffected by others?

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court was faced with an issue where Amish religious beliefs conflicted with Wisconsin's law requiring schooling until the age of 16. I believe religion takes priority for the most part, unless dealing with Certain Laws, which creates the question of where we draw the line.

The Supreme Court's 6-1 ruling would at least support religion taking priority in this case. Although Wisconsin was using its given police power to enforce schooling in the best interest of the people, this law violated the First Amendment rights of the Amish, especially their right of expression and religion. Their views also highlighted that higher education after the 8th grade would expose their children to outside ideas that would lead them away from God and their community.

Background: The Amish & Compulsory Education

The Amish people believe in a lifestyle of humility and separation from the world. Most Amish kids, around 14 years old after completing the 8th grade, begin their adult roles in the community and start learning hands-on. They focus on a life that prioritizes informal learning through "goodness," rather than a life of learning through accomplishments, and believe that in school, they are exposed to beliefs like competition through work and pressure, which contradict their religious beliefs.

This became a problem because the state of Wisconsin requires that kids stay in school until they are 16 years of age, meaning that Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy who they and their family were residents of Green County, Wisconsin, were all charged for violating the compulsory-attendance law.

Judicial Path of the Case

Wisconsin Circuit Court: Sided with the plaintiff (State of Wisconsin).

Wisconsin Supreme Court: Sided with the defendant (Yoder) upon appeal.

U.S. Supreme Court: Granted the writ of certiorari to render the final judgment.

The State's Case: Police Power & Future Opportunities

The plaintiffs' main argument was that it is in the best interest of these kids to attend school until the age of 16 because it will prepare them for the real world and their contribution to society. In addition, Wisconsin had the compulsory-attendance law, which they were able to implement in the first place because they used their police power.

Legal Definition: Police power is the authority of a state to make laws that are for the public's health, safety, and well-being.

Thus, because Wisconsin was trying to keep the kids in school for their well-being and success in the future in our society, this law was constitutional. Wisconsin also argued that these are still kids, and if they decide to separate from the religion once they become adults and wish to follow a different career path that requires higher education, these children would be far behind.

Mr. Justice Douglas explains this in his dissenting opinion (a dissenting opinion is written by a judge who disagrees with the majority of the court and explains their reasons):

It is the future of the student, not the future of the parents, that is imperiled by today's decision. If a parent keeps their child out of school beyond grade school, then the child will be forever barred from entry into the new and amazing world of diversity that we have today.

Constitutional Priorities & The Supremacy Clause

However, I disagree with these two arguments. To start, Wisconsin's law was constitutional and under its police power, but they were still breaking the Amish people's First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion, and I believe that not only does their right to religion come first, but legally, the Constitutional Amendment takes priority over state law.

This is because of the Supremacy Clause, which states that the Constitution takes priority over federal law and state law. This clause can be used for states because even though the Bill of Rights is for the federal government, the 14th Amendment and the Due Process Clause were interpreted to allow it.

In addition I disagree with saying that these kids need to stay in school because it will prepare them for the future because it is just two extra years of schooling before they are allowed to stop which would not make that big of a difference and like said by Chief Justice Burger:

The evidence also showed that the Amish have an excellent record as law-abiding and generally self-sufficient members of society.

This shows how the Amish are already positive to society without the extra two years of schooling.

Freedom of Expression & Isolation as a Choice

The defendants argued this was a violation of their First Amendment right to free exercise and that it was a direct conflict with their beliefs. I agree with this because they are an isolated group of people who wish to teach their children and community their views and beliefs.

So, after getting a strong education in reading, writing, and other important lessons that you learn through the eighth grade, families should have the right to teach their children what they will be doing in the future, like work and prepare to help in their community. Their religious beliefs are also something that may not be taught in school, and if not taught, they may even be contradicted, so these families who don't want their children exposed to this should have the right to teach them themselves.

The only sure way of escaping this and for different views not to affect you is to isolate yourself from all opposing views; that is what the Amish decided to do. They did not try to suppress anyone else's views by saying they were not allowed to express them, but instead took it upon themselves and moved out of society. This was the best way they could've achieved their idea of religious strength and unity without any other different views and temptations.

Since they are known as peaceful people, I believe that it is unjust for the government to now say that their separation, which only impacts them, is wrong. This is why the case also laid the foundation for homeschooling, which is a normalised and acceptable way of learning today.

In addition, Footnote Four helps protect people like the Amish in cases like this. The footnote prevents discrimination against small religious groups or easily recognized groups, for example. Here, because the Amish were a minority group, this note helped their case that they should be allowed to follow what their religion tells them.

Drawing the Line: Yoder vs. Employment Division v. Smith

Although some people may disagree and use Employment Division v. Smith to try to contradict my point, this is where we have to draw the line between what laws can be under religion and what laws are deemed more important.

In Employment Division v. Smith, I believe that because this was a drug-related incident, it would be more important than school.

Where Should Society Draw the Line?

Infractions / Violations: The children leaving school before the age of 16 in Wisconsin would be considered truants—just the intentional or unintentional missing of school for a child, not a misdemeanor or felony.

Misdemeanors / Felonies: Higher-tier offenses (like drug violations in Smith) cross the line where public safety overrides personal religious exemptions.

Conclusion: Preserving Personal Beliefs in Government

Although Wisconsin was right under the constitution to use its police power for the right of children's education, this law did not account for religious contradiction and, in turn, violated certain religious beliefs and the Amish's First Amendment rights of free expression.

My question was whether it was possible to live in modern society while keeping your beliefs intact and unaffected by others. I believe the answer is yes.

It's necessary to keep personal beliefs intact in our society because people should always have the right to express what they believe, because when people truly believe something, they completely accept it and follow its practices. If the law prevents this, then do people have freedom if their beliefs are limited and they are not allowed to express them through religious actions? As long as they are not crossing the line of illegal actions, it is necessary for there to be unity between beliefs and the Government.

Works Cited & References

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. Oyez, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213. Accessed 1 Aug. 2025.

UMKC School of Law. "Wisconsin v. Yoder." Famous American Trials, Law2.umkc.edu, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/yoder.html. Accessed 1 Aug. 2025.