Wisconsin v. Yoder

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Family Law

406 U.S. 205 (1972)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawparental rightsreligionFree Exercise Clausecompulsory educationAmishcompulsory school attendancesecondary education

Facts

Respondents were Amish parents in Wisconsin who refused to send their 14- and 15-year-old children to public or private high school after the children completed the eighth grade, even though Wisconsin law required school attendance until age 16. The State stipulated that respondents' religious beliefs were sincere, and the trial evidence showed that high school attendance was contrary to central Amish religious tenets and way of life. Expert testimony indicated that compulsory secondary schooling would interfere with Amish religious development, integration into the Amish community, and potentially threaten the survival of the Amish community itself. Respondents were convicted and fined $5 each for violating the compulsory attendance law.

Issue

May Wisconsin, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, compel Amish parents to cause their children to attend formal high school until age 16 despite the parents' sincere religious objection? More specifically, does the state's interest in compulsory secondary education override the parents' free exercise claim combined with their traditional interest in directing the religious upbringing of their children?

Rule

When a state's compulsory education requirement interferes with the practice of a legitimate religious belief, the state may enforce the requirement only if it either does not deny free exercise or if it is supported by an interest of sufficient magnitude to override the free exercise claim. Only interests of the highest order, and those not otherwise served, can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion, especially when combined with the traditional parental interest in directing the religious upbringing and education of children.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Ohio, members of the River Plain Fellowship stop their children’s formal schooling after eighth grade and train them at home in farming, carpentry, and religious study. The state prosecutes Mara and Eli Brenner for violating a compulsory-attendance law, but the trial record shows the practice has been followed by their church for generations, is tied to scriptural commands, and the state does not dispute the sincerity of their beliefs.

Who is most likely to prevail?

Explanation. The majority required first that the claimed practice be rooted in religious belief rather than secular preference. Where the objection is sincere, longstanding, and intertwined with the faith and way of life of an organized religious community, the Free Exercise Clause is implicated. The state must then show more than a general educational interest; only interests of the highest order, not otherwise served, can override the claim, especially when combined with parental authority over religious upbringing.