Meyer v. Nebraska
| Meyer v. Nebraska | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Negotiated February 23, 1923 |
||||
| Decided June 4, 1923 |
||||
|
||||
| facts | ||||
| As a teacher at a denominational school, the plaintiff also taught in German. He was convicted of a Nebraska State law prohibiting the teaching of a foreign language. | ||||
| decision | ||||
| A law prohibiting school teaching in a modern foreign language is unconstitutional. It violates the rule of law in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution . | ||||
| occupation | ||||
|
||||
| Positions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| 14. Amendment to the Constitution |
As Meyer v. Nebraska (File Number 262 US 390 ), is referred to as a 1923 Supreme Court ruling . It was a decision from the field of school law . The Supreme Court ruled that a regulation banning schooling in a modern, but non-English language, violated the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
facts
Plaintiff Robert T. Meyer was found guilty by the Hamilton County District Court for teaching German to his student Raymond Parpart on May 25, 1920 as a teacher at the Zion Parochial School . This violated the so-called Siman Act of the state of Nebraska of April 9, 1919, in which teaching in any language other than English was prohibited in private, public or denominational schools. This law was supposed to officially promote the English language and the integration of children from immigrant families, but it was also an expression of an anti-German sentiment promoted by the First World War .
The Supreme Court of Nebraska upheld the ruling, so Meyer appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
The decision
The decision, written by James C. McReynolds , states that even if the state "may do a lot ... to improve the quality of life of its citizens," the contested law exceeds the limits of the state's mandate and violates Meyer in his rights. The freedom that is imparted by the rule of law "undoubtedly includes not only protection from physical assault, but also the right of every person to conclude contracts, to do everything that makes life worth living To acquire knowledge, to get married, to build a family, to live according to one's religion and in general to exercise all the rights which are indispensable for leading a happy life. "
Judges Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and George Sutherland did not endorse the decision. The different reasoning can be found in the Bartels v. Iowa . Holmes wrote that he departed from the majority "with reluctance and reluctance" because he believed that the law did not impose undue restrictions on the teacher's freedom as it is not arbitrary, limited in its application to teaching children, and that there are areas in the state where many children only hear a language other than English at home. “I think I understand the objection to the law, but it seems to me that this is a question that people may well disagree on, and so I cannot say that the United States Constitution prevents an experiment from being attempted . "
Effects
Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) are considered to be the first cases in which the Supreme Court used the rule of law ( due process ) to substantiate civil rights . Judge Kennedy suspects that the decision in both cases would be justified differently today: "If the Pierce and Meyer cases were decided today, the decision would probably be based on the 1st constitutional amendment , from which the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion result . "
Today's case law of the Supreme Court forbids invoking the rule of law if a more specific provision - such as the 1st Amendment - is applicable.
Trivia
In the television series The West Wing , the case is cited as an example of excessive action by the Supreme Court to protect civil rights not expressly enshrined in the Constitution.
See also
- List of significant rulings by the United States Supreme Court
- History of the Germans in the United States
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ Meyer v. Nebraska , 262 US 390 - full text (English)
- ↑ Juan Cobarrubias, Joshua A. Fishman Progress in Language Planning - International Perspectives , 1983 de Gruyter Berlin ISBN 90-279-3358-8 , p 97
- ↑ [1] , accessed on February 20, 2012
- ↑ Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. James C. McReynolds.
- ↑ Bartels v. State of Iowa , 262 US 404 (1923).
- ↑ I think I appreciate the objection to the law, but it appears to me to present a question upon which men reasonably might differ and therefore I am unable to say the Constitution of the United States prevents the experiment being tried. Oliver Wendell Holmes.
- ^ Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (Kennedy dissenting).
- ↑ Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386 (1989). See also United States v. Lanier , 520 US 259 (1997): “Graham requires that when a specific provision of the constitution - such as the 4th or 8th amendment - is relevant, the unconstitutionality must be attached to that particular norm, without the general one Rule of law. "
- ↑ Season 6, Episode 14 "The Wake Up Call"