No, the school's rule does not violate the Constitution. The court decided that making sure everyone feels united as a country is extremely important for national security. The flag is our symbol of unity. It's up to elected officials on the school board, not judges, to decide the best ways to teach patriotism. If they think a flag salute is a good way to do it, the court shouldn't get in the way. The goal of national unity was seen as more important than one family's religious objection to a rule that applied to everyone.

Yes, the school's rule absolutely violates the Constitution. This judge argued that forcing someone to say something they don't believe, especially when it violates their religion, is exactly what freedom of speech and religion is supposed to prevent. You can't force someone to be patriotic. He said the government's most important job is to protect the rights of small groups with unpopular beliefs from being bullied by the majority. There are better ways to teach kids to love their country than forcing them to go against their conscience.

No, making kids salute the flag in school doesn't go against the Constitution, even if they have religious reasons not to, because having everyone feel united as a country is super important, and that's why schools can have flag salutes. The rule isn't about stopping anyone from practicing their religion; it's about bringing people together as Americans. Just because someone's religion disagrees with something the country thinks is important, like saluting the flag, doesn't mean they can ignore those rules.

I agree with the decision because I understand that the government wants all kids to feel united, but I worry that forcing children to do something against their true religious beliefs is not fair. I differ from the main opinion because I think that even if being united is important, it should never come at the cost of making kids go against what they truly believe.

The lower court's decision should stand because the law forces these kids to say something that goes against their honest religious beliefs. This does more than just stop free speech and freedom of religion. The Constitution's protections of individual liberty aren't always absolute, but it's a big leap to say the government can make people say things that go against their religion as a way to teach them. There are other ways to teach loyalty and patriotism without forcing kids to say things they don't believe. We need to look carefully at laws that try to make small groups with unusual religious beliefs conform, in order to protect their rights.

Justice Frankfurter, writing for the Court, sustained the validity of the compulsory flag salute in the public schools against claims by Jehovah's Witnesses that the compelling of their children to salute the flag violated their religious freedom.

—the Supreme Court decided against Jehovah's Witnesses who sought to have their children exempted from the daily pledge of allegiance to the flag on the grounds that this exercise amounted to a form of idolatry strictly forbidden by their faith.

" `Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.'"

—involved two children of Jehovah' s Witnesses who were expelled from public school for refusing to salute the flag.

Juvenile civil rights plaintiffs have also proceeded under their own names in the education context.

The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities. Id

—the West Virginia legislature amended its statutes to require all schools therein to conduct courses of instruction in history, civics, and in the Constitutions of the United States and of the State "for the purpose of teaching, fostering and perpetuating the ideals, principles and spirit of Americanism, and increasing the knowledge of the organization and machinery of the …

To fight out the wise use of legislative authority in the forum of public opinion and before legislative assemblies rather than to transfer such a contest to the judicial arena, serves to vindicate the self-confidence of a free people

—case that functions of educational officers in states, counties and school districts were such that to interfere with their authority "would in effect make us the school board for the country."...

Note Justice Frankfurter's poignant dissenting opinion in the case—a classic illustration of judicial restraint. 23.

No. The public school district's flag-salute requirement does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The state has a legitimate and vital interest in fostering national cohesion and unity, which is the foundation of national security. The flag is the primary symbol of this unity, and legislatures have the authority to select appropriate means, such as a flag-salute ceremony, to promote this patriotic sentiment in schools. The freedom of religion is not absolute and does not relieve citizens from their political responsibilities under a general law not specifically aimed at restricting religious beliefs. Courts should not act as the 'school board for the country' or substitute their judgment for that of legislative bodies on matters of educational policy designed to promote a legitimate state interest. The proper remedy for what some may deem unwise legislation lies in the democratic political process, not in judicial intervention.

Yes. The public school district's flag-salute requirement violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This law coerces children to express a sentiment that violates their deepest religious convictions, which is a direct infringement of the freedoms of speech and religion. The very essence of constitutional liberty is the freedom of the individual from government compulsion as to what they shall think or say. While the state has an interest in promoting patriotism, there are many alternative ways to achieve this without compelling an affirmation that violates one's conscience. The judiciary has a heightened responsibility to protect the rights of 'discrete and insular minorities' from the will of the majority, and the court should not surrender this duty by deferring to legislative judgment when fundamental freedoms are at stake. The state's interest in school discipline does not outweigh the children's fundamental right to be free from compulsory violation of their religious faith.

No, the compulsory flag-salute for public school children does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments even when it conflicts with their religious beliefs, because the flag is a symbol of national unity and the state has the authority to foster this sentiment through the educational system. The legislation was not aimed at promoting or restricting religious beliefs and the freedom to follow conscience has limits within society. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

I concur in the result because, although the state’s interest in fostering national unity through compulsory school exercises is significant, compelling children to perform a ritual that conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs places an undue burden on individual conscience. I agree with the outcome, yet I differ from the majority in that I give greater weight to the protection of individual liberties; I believe that the imposition of a mandated salute must be scrutinized more carefully because forced expression of belief undermines the fundamental right of religious freedom.

The judgment should be affirmed because the law coerces these children to express a sentiment contrary to their genuine religious convictions, doing more than suppressing free speech and prohibiting free exercise of religion. The constitutional guarantees of personal liberty are not always absolutes, but it is a long step to say government may compel public affirmations which violate religious conscience as a supposed educational measure. There are other ways to teach loyalty and patriotism than by compelling an affirmation of belief. Careful scrutiny of such legislative efforts to secure conformity of belief is especially needed to protect the civil rights of small minorities with religious beliefs regarded as out of the ordinary.

Minersville School District v. Gobitis

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot