Court Opinion

ID: 9683189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:24:06.070702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:46.085768
License: Public Domain

P. A. Hollingsworth, Justice, concurring. Appellant contends that he is exempt from the penalties of the state’s compulsory education laws because his child is instructed at home on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. The majority does not address this question precisely, but I think it should be addressed because this Court has not previously considered this issue. The free exercise clause of the first amendment is an absolute prohibition against governmental regulation of religious beliefs and provides substantial protection for lawful conduct grounded in religious belief. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963). “Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional and there are instances where the state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest. ” United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 257-258 (1982) (citation omitted). Enforcement of the statutes in this instance will prohibit the parents from educating their children only at home but will not prevent them from observing their religious tenets. They must send their children to school but can still teach them at home.