Editing Wisconsin v. Yoder (section)

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Wisconsin v. Yoder
  |ArgueDate=December 8
  |ArgueYear=1971
  |DecideDate=May 15
  |DecideYear=1972
  |FullName=State of Wisconsin v. Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy
  |USVol=406
  |USPage=205
  |ParallelCitations=92 S. Ct. 1526; 32 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 15; 1972 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 144
  |Prior=Defendants convicted, Green County, Wisconsin Circuit Court; reversed, 182 [[N.W.2d]] 539 (Wis. 1971); [[Certiorari|cert]]. granted, {{ussc|402|994|1971|el=no}}.
  |Subsequent=None
  |OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-110
  |Holding=The Wisconsin Compulsory School Attendance Law violated the [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the First Amendment because required attendance past the eighth grade interfered with the right of Amish parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.  Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed.
  |Majority=Burger
  |JoinMajority=Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun
  |Concurrence=Stewart
  |JoinConcurrence=Brennan
  |Concurrence2=White
  |JoinConcurrence2=Brennan, Stewart
  |Dissent=Douglas
  |NotParticipating=Powell and Rehnquist
  |LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. I; Wis. Stat. § 118.15 (Wisconsin Compulsory School Attendance Law)
}}
{{Education in the U.S.}}
'''''Wisconsin v. Jonas Yoder''''', 406 U.S. 205 (1972), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case in which the Court held that [[Amish]] children could not be placed under [[compulsory education]] past [[junior high school|8th grade]].  The Court ruled that the Amish parents' fundamental right to free exercise of religion outweighed the state's interest in educating their children. The case is often cited as a basis for [[Homeschooling in the United States#U.S. Supreme Court precedent|parents' right to educate their children]] outside of traditional private or public schools.<ref>{{Cite web|title=State of WISCONSIN, Petitioner, v. Jonas YODER et al.|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/406/205|access-date=2021-06-17|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Wisconsin v. Yoder |url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-110 |website=Oyez |access-date=13 October 2021}}</ref>

Like ''[[Sherbert v. Verner]]'', the Court in ''Yoder'' required the government [[Accommodationism in the United States|accommodate religious exercise]] by applying [[strict scrutiny]] to a neutral law that burdened religious exercise.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Tribe |first1=Laurence H. |title=American Constitutional Law |date=1978 |page=821-866|url=https://archive.org/details/americanconstitu0000trib/page/820|quote=American courts certainly do ''not'' require—indeed, they do not even ''permit''—government to be totally oblivious to religion; the United States Supreme Court has upheld government action that 'accommodates the public service to...spiritual needs', and has on occasion held such accommodation to be required by the first amendment's free exercise clause.}}</ref> ''Yoder'' differs from ''[[Sherbert v. Verner]]''  because the compulsory school attendance law was non-discriminatory and did not include a mechanism for individualized exemptions. Later, in ''[[Employment Division v. Smith]]'' Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote that ''Yoder'' involved a "hybrid right" composed of parental rights and free exercise.<ref>{{Cite book|last1 = Breidenbach|first1 = Michael D.|last2 = Anderson|first2 = Owen |title = The Cambridge Companion to the First Amendment and Religious Liberty |publisher = Cambridge University Press| isbn = 978-1-108-41747-1| url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_IDCDwAAQBAJ | date = 2020|page=239}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title = The Time Has Come to Overrule Wisconsin v. Yoder | access-date = 2024-07-04| url = https://casetext.com/analysis/the-time-has-come-to-overrule-wisconsin-v-yoder}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title = Laws Neutral to Religious Practice from the 1960s through the 1980s |website=Library of Congress| access-date = 2024-07-04| url = https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-4-3-2/ALDE_00013224}}</ref> 

The Amish, who prevailed in the case, were represented by [[William Bentley Ball|William Ball]].