Farrington, Governor v. T. Tokushige
273 U.S. 284, 1927 U.S. LEXIS 699, 47 S. Ct. 406 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Excessively comprehensive and intrusive governmental regulations that dictate the teachers, curriculum, textbooks, and operations of private foreign language schools violate the liberty and property rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Facts:
- Numerous voluntary unincorporated associations, including respondents, operated 163 private foreign language schools in the Territory of Hawaii, predominantly for children of Japanese, Korean, and Chinese descent.
- These schools were privately funded through tuition fees and contributions, employed approximately 300 teachers, enrolled 20,000 pupils, and held property valued at over $250,000.
- Children attending these schools were also required to attend public schools or equivalent private schools, and did so.
- The Territory of Hawaii enacted a series of laws (Act 30 and its amendments) to regulate these foreign language schools.
- The laws required schools and teachers to obtain annual permits, contingent upon teachers possessing 'ideals of democracy,' knowing American history, and pledging to make pupils 'good and loyal American citizens.'
- The legislation granted the territorial Department of Public Instruction the power to prescribe the schools' subjects, courses of study, textbooks, and student qualifications.
- The regulations also restricted school hours, limiting instruction to one hour per day and prohibiting sessions during public school hours.
- Schools were required to pay an annual fee of one dollar per pupil, which funded the Department's enforcement of the act.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents, associations conducting foreign language schools, filed a suit in the United States District Court of Hawaii.
- Respondents sought a temporary injunction to prohibit petitioners, officials of the Territory of Hawaii, from enforcing the territory's restrictive foreign language school laws.
- The U.S. District Court, a court of first instance, granted the temporary injunction.
- Petitioners (the territorial officials) appealed the granting of the injunction to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the district court's decision to grant the injunction.
- Petitioners then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a territorial law that imposes strict, detailed control over the curriculum, teachers, textbooks, and student attendance of private foreign language schools, to the point of threatening their existence, unconstitutionally deprive the schools' owners and the students' parents of liberty and property without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McReynolds
Yes. The law unconstitutionally deprives the schools and parents of liberty and property without due process of law. The regulations go far beyond mere reasonable oversight and constitute an intrusive governmental plan to control every intimate and essential detail of the schools, including teachers, curriculum, and textbooks. Citing Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Court holds that the fundamental rights protected from state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment are similarly protected from federal territorial action by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. These rights include the right of parents to direct the education of their children and the right of schools to operate without unreasonable interference. The enforcement of this act would likely destroy the schools and deny parents a fair opportunity to provide their children with instruction that is not inherently harmful.
Analysis:
This case extends the substantive due process protections for educational freedom, established in Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, to federal territories through the Fifth Amendment. It reinforces the principle that while the government holds a legitimate interest in regulating education, this power is not absolute. The decision solidifies a parent's fundamental right to direct their child's upbringing and education against overreaching governmental interference, creating a significant barrier to laws that aim to suppress cultural or linguistic education under the guise of promoting 'Americanism.'
