Minersville School District v. Gobitis:
The Story:
Two students, Lillian, age 10, and William Gobitis, aged 12, were expelled from their school after they failed to salute the flag. At the lowering of their hands, at the silence of their protests, their education was forcefully removed. While the local school board required the flag salute, both Lillian and William refused because they were Jehovah’s Witnesses, who were taught not to worship or honor graven images. Walter Gobitis sued, arguing that the family's religious convictions prevented them from doing the salute.
The Breakdown:
Gobitis argued that Pennsylvania's requirement for public school students to salute the flag violated both the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause. The First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Fourteenth Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” To clarify, the Fourteenth Amendment allowed for the incorporation of First Amendment Rights to be protected from state laws. In short, the Fourteenth Amendment established that freedom of religion was a right that could not be impinged upon by the states. Consequently, the central issue for this case was the First Amendment.
The school board argued that saluting the American flag was a secular activity vital to patriotism and national unity, which outweighed the religious concerns. They advocated for the court to have deference towards the school boards. Finally, they believed that granting exceptions to patriotic activities could demoralize the student body, and diminish loyalty towards patriotic ideas.
The Majority Opinion:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Minersville School District 8-1, and Justice Frankfurter gave the majority opinion. He explained that, “government may not interfere with organized or individual expression of belief or disbelief.” However, he writes, “the religious liberty which the Constitution protects has never excluded legislation of general scope not directed against doctrinal loyalties of particular sects.” He found that the school board’s legislation was a secular regulation designed to foster national unity. It did not have the purpose of limiting religious expression. Furthermore, he outlines how national unity was a political responsibility for all citizens, and that religious convictions could not relieve a citizen from their duty to support their country. He explained that, “national unity is the basis of national security,” and for this reason, he concludes that national security is a more superior value to protect over the religious objections of the two students. However, Frankfurter was not trying to claim that religious freedom did not matter. The opinion seems to imply that Frankfurter believed that religious toleration itself depended on a stable nation, which would mean that laws that promoted national unity help religion enough to outweigh the costs of certain objections. The two Gobitis children and other Jehovah’s Witnesses found little comfort in this logic. He also deferred authority to the school boards by explaining that the court should not interfere with local school board policies, even if justices disagree with those said policies. On that note, he explains, “It is not our province to choose among competing considerations in the subtle process of securing effective loyalty to the traditional ideals of democracy, while respecting at the same time…religious allegiances…(This) would, in effect, make us the school board for the country.” He concludes that the Court will always protect cherished liberties.
The Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Stone gave the lone dissenting opinion. He began his opinion by giving a stern warning as to the effects of the new precedent, explaining that, “for, by this law, the state seeks to coerce these children to express a sentiment which, as they interpret it, they do not entertain, and which violates their deepest religious convictions.” He argued that this case directly rejected freedom of speech and religion from the First Amendment and that the purpose of the Amendment was to protect citizens from this exact kind of government overreach. The Constitution did not require forced expression of loyalty to the United States, and it especially did not require one to forsake their religious commitment to do so. He believed that the Courts yielding to the legislature and school board was a form of surrendering the constitutional liberty of religious minorities. He concludes with, “I cannot say that the inconveniences which may attend some sensible adjustment of school discipline in order that the religious convictions of these children may be spared presents a problem so momentous or pressing as to outweigh the freedom from compulsory violation of religious faith which has been thought worthy of constitutional protection.”
The Aftermath:
The Court's decision not only eroded constitutional liberty but also justified public outrage toward Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were hazed and attacked mercilessly, and a 1941 Department of Justice report found that there was mob violence in over 40 states. Thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses would be expelled from schools, and some were physically assaulted. The case was eventually overruled by West Virginia v. Barnette, where the court reversed their decision just three years later. West Virginia v. Barnette will be covered in this blog in the future.
Before Barnette, three of the eight justices had recanted their decision to side with Frankfurter in Gobitis. To this day, Gobitis serves as a powerful example of a ruling guided without constitutional principle.
Bibliography:
Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940).
Columbia Global Freedom of Expression. “Minersville School District v. Gobitis.”
Constitution Annotated, Congressional Research Service. “Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Generally.”
EBSCO Research Starters. “Minersville School District v. Gobitis.” via SAGE Publishing.
SCOTUSblog. “The Supreme Court Case That Incited Violence.” July 2025.
Full text links:
Columbia Global Freedom of Expression: https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/minersville-sch-dist-v-gobitis/
Constitution Annotated, 14th Amendment Due Process: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/due-process-generally
Minersville School District v. Gobitis, Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/310/586/
SAGE Publishing Case Resource: https://edge.sagepub.com/epsteinshort9e/student-resources/chapter-12-religion/minersville-school-district-v-gobitis-1940
SCOTUS Blog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/07/the-supreme-court-case-that-incited-violence/
