Supreme Court Case Study: Flag Salute Requirement
Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 1940
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
Background of the Case ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
In 1898, after New York passed a law requiring school children to salute the American flag
during opening exercises of the school day, other states began to pass similar laws. These early
laws did not make the flag salute ceremony compulsory, but in later years many local school
boards insisted that all students participate. Many patriotic organizations supported the flag
salute requirement. Opposition came from civil libertarians and some religious groups,
including the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses is an evangelistic sect believing, among other things, that the biblical
prohibition against worship of images forbids them to salute the flag. This religious group
became the major opponent of the compulsory school flag salute.
Lillian and William Gobitis, aged 12 and 10 respectively, followed the Witnesses’ teaching
and refused to salute the flag in their Minersville, Pennsylvania, public schools. The board of
education there, which required a daily flag salute, expelled the children.
Since school attendance in Pennsylvania was compulsory, the children’s parents placed them
in private schools.William Gobitis, their father, then sued the Minersville Board of Education
for relief from this new financial burden. He sought an injunction that would prevent the Board
of Education from requiring the flag salute as a condition of free public education.
Two lower courts held in favor of Gobitis, whereupon the Minersville School District filed
an appeal with the United States Supreme Court. The Minersville case became the first flag salute
case to reach the Supreme Court.
C
onstitutional Issue ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
The Court said the issue to be decided was “whether the requirement of participation in
such a ceremony, exacted from a child who refuses upon sincere religious grounds, infringes
without due process of law the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
The Supreme Court’s Decision ★★★★★★★★★★★★★
The Court decided against Gobitis by an 8 to 1 majority. Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote for
the Court.
Although individuals are protected by the Constitution in their religious beliefs or disbeliefs,
Frankfurter explained that sometimes the “manifold character of man’s relations may bring his
conception of religious duty into conflict with the secular interests of his fellow men.” As viewed
by the Court, its task was “to reconcile two rights in order to prevent either from destroying
the other.”
Historically, Frankfurter wrote, “the religious liberty which the Constitution protects has
never excluded legislation of a general scope not directed against doctrinal loyalties of particular sects.”
Like freedom of speech, religious freedom may sometimes necessarily be limited in order to “maintain
that orderly, tranquil and free society without which religious toleration itself is unattainable.”
The Court realized that this case did not deal with societal needs or interests such as
defense, taxation, health, or family protection. However, stated Frankfurter, “all these specific
activities of government presuppose the existence of an organized political society. The ultimate
foundation of a free society is the binding tie of cohesive sentiment.” He went on, “The
precise issue, then, for us to decide is whether the legislatures of the various states . . . are barred
from determining the appropriateness of various means to evoke that unifying sentiment. . . .”
On that consideration, the Court declared its lack of competence to overrule the wisdom of
the legislatures. “Even were we convinced of the folly of such a measure (i.e., a required flag
salute), such belief would be no proof of its unconstitutionality.” Furthermore, “the court
room is not the arena for debating issues of educational policy. . . . So to hold would in effect
make us the school board of the country.”
The Court also declined to rule that the law was unconstitutional for not making any exception
to its requirement. Frankfurter concluded, “But for us to insist that, though the ceremony may
be required, exceptional immunity must be given to dissidents, is to maintain that there is no
basis for legislative judgment that such an exemption might introduce elements of difficulty
into the school discipline. . . .”
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
Dissenting Opinion ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
Justice Harlan Stone wrote a powerful dissenting opinion in the case. Likewise, the Court’s
decision was widely criticized and some members began to have second thoughts. Later, when
a case similar to Gobitis came before the Court, the Gobitis ruling was overruled. However,
more important was the fact that the Gobitis decision was followed by a wave of prosecutions
of Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the country.
DIRECTIONS: Answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper.
1. What function, according to the Supreme Court, did the flag salute serve?
2. What were the basic reasons the Court overruled the lower courts?
3. If a flag salute case came before the Court today, what do you think the ruling would be?
4. If you had been a member of a group that did not believe in compulsory flag salutes, would you have
protested, like the Gobitises’, or accepted the board of education’s requirement? Explain your answer.
5. On what grounds do you think civil libertarians were disappointed in the Court’s Gobitis decision?