Minersville School District v. Gobitis

Appellant
Minersville School District
Appellee
Walter Gobitis
Appellant's Claim
That forcing a schoolchild to salute the American flag in violation of her religious principles abridges her First Amendment right to exercise her faith freely.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Joseph W. Henderson
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
George K. Gardner and Joseph F. Rutherford
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter (writing for theCourt), Charles Evans Hughes, James Clark McReynolds, Frank Murphy, Stanley Forman Reed, Owen Josephus Roberts
Justices Dissenting
Harlan Fiske Stone
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
3 June 1940
Decision
Arguing that the "felt necessities" of society outweigh the dictates of an individual's religious conscience, the Supreme Court upheld the state law mandating the flag salute.
Significance
World War II clearly influenced the outcome of this case, which was overturned three years later in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).
The school board that controlled the public school in Minersville, Pennsylvania, required that both teachers and students salute the American flag as partof a daily school exercise. Lillian Gobitis, aged 12, and her brother William, aged 11, both attended the school. Both were from a family that belonged to the Jehovah's Witnesses, which taught that saluting the flag was forbiddenby holy scripture. When the children refused to comply with the flag salute requirement, both were expelled from school.
Their parents were then obliged to put the Gobitis children in private schools, an expense the family could not afford. To be relieved of this burden, Walter Gobitis brought this suit in his own behalf and on behalf of his children. From the district court he obtained an injunction to prevent the school board from prohibiting his children from returning to public school. The injunction was upheld in the circuit court of appeals, a ruling the school board requested the U.S. Supreme Court to review.
Nationalism in Time of War Trumps the First Amendment
The basis for Gobitis's suit was the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which reads: "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." Writing for the Court, Justice Frankfurter found that even this prohibition had its limits:

Certainly the affirmative pursuit of one's convictions about the ultimate mystery of the universe and man'srelation to it is placed beyond the reach of law. Government may not interfere with organized or individual expression of belief or disbelief . . . But the manifold character of man's religion may bring his conception of religiousduty into conflict with the secular interests of his fellow-man . . . [T]o affirm that the freedom to follow conscience has itself no limits in the lifeof a society would deny that very plurality of principles which, as a matterof history, underlies protection of religious toleration.

As a matter of history, the individual beliefs of the Gobitis family were particularly at odds with the interests of most members of society in 1940, whenAmerica was on the brink of entering World War II. Also as a matter of history, the Court had legal precedent for enforcing the flag salute requirement.As far back as Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court hadfound that there could be a rational basis for punishing individuals for religiously motivated actions, so long as the state did not inquire into their beliefs. The issue in Reynolds, Mormon polygamy, was perhaps of a different order than refusing to pay homage to a symbol. For the Supreme Court intime of war, however, much more was at stake than a symbol: "We are dealing with an interest inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values," wrote Frankfurter. "National unity is the basis of national security."
Only one of the justices, Stone, disagreed with this opinion. Just three years later, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943),a majority of the Court voted in favor of the Jehovah's Witnesses in anotherflag salute case. Gobitis proved to be a highly criticized decision.It seemed to license abuse of religious nonconformists. The incidence of attacks on Jehovah's Witnesses in particular escalated dramatically. State authorities threatened to send children who refused to pledge allegiance to the flag to reformatories for juvenile delinquents. West Virginia passed a compulsory flag salute law modeled on the Court's opinion in Gobitis. Barnette, which used the First Amendment right of free speech as the grounds for overturning this law, was a marked retreat from everything Gobitis acknowledged.
Related Cases

• Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879).
  
• West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

Jehovah's Witnesses and Public Schools
Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian sect that gives sole allegiance to the kingdom of Jesus Christ. As a result, they refuse to salute any flag, vote, perform military service, or otherwise signify allegiance to any government. Attimes, these beliefs have brought members into conflict with the U.S. government. For instance, children who belong to the Jehovah's Witnesses have been expelled from public schools because they have refused to salute the U.S. flagin violation of their religion's teachings. The religion prohibits the worship of "graven images" and considers the American flag to be a graven image.
Sources
Eastland, Terry. Religious Liberty in the Supreme Court. Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1993.