Minersville School District v. Gobitis | |
---|---|
Argued April 25, 1940 Decided June 3, 1940 | |
Full case name | Minersville School District, Board of Education of Minersville School District, et al. v. Walter Gobitis, et al. |
Citations | 310 U.S. 586 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | Judgment for plaintiffs, injunction granted, 24 F. Supp. 271 (E.D. Pa. 1938); affirmed, 108 F.2d 683 (3d Cir. 1939); cert. granted, 309 U.S. 645 (1940). |
Subsequent | None |
Holding | |
The First Amendment does not require States to excuse public school students from saluting the American flag and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance on religious grounds. Third Circuit reversed. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Frankfurter, joined by Hughes, McReynolds, Roberts, Black, Reed, Douglas, Murphy |
Dissent | Stone |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV | |
Overruled by | |
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) |
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.[1] 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).[2]
Subsequent cases have applied a lower standard of review to generally applicable laws when evaluating free exercise claims;[3] Justice Antonin Scalia cited Frankfurter's Gobitis opinion at least three times in Employment Division v. Smith (1990).[4]
The Supreme Court issued an important decision concerning the standard of review in Free Exercise cases in Department of Human Resources v. Smith...reversing an earlier decision, the Court decided that a neutral law of general applicability is to be reviewed under the Rational Basis Test, not strict scrutiny.