Case Citator › Pierce v. Society of Sisters

Pierce v. Society of Sisters

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
268 U.S. 510
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
46 of 46
Citing cases (total)
46
Treatment dates
2005–2025
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Pierce v. Society of Sisters remains authority for parents' freedom to choose private schooling, but later courts have declined to extend its parental-liberty reasoning to two other settings. All 46 flagged citations have been read, with the 2 limited treatments listed below.
More on how this was screened

The New Jersey appellate court refused to treat Pierce as protecting a parent's waiver of a child's future tort claim. The en banc Eighth Circuit held that Pierce and related parental-rights decisions did not establish a right to obtain medical treatment that a state prohibits for minors. The Supreme Court has continued to cite Pierce's education holding approvingly.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

46 later cases cite Pierce v. Society of Sisters; 46 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Pierce v. Society of Sisters?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The court declined to extend Pierce's parental-liberty protection to a parent's waiver of a child's future tort claim.

    Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park · Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division · filed

    Although we acknowledge that fundamental right to exist, as we must (see, e.g. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060, 147 L.Ed.2d 49, 56-57 (2000)), we do not read the precedent defining that right (as does our colleague) as encompassing a decision such as this to forego substantial tort remedies, a decision that we find to be different from such fundamental concerns as establishment of a home, upbringing and education, religion, or medical care. See, e.g., Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 604, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 2505, 61 L.Ed.2d 101, 120 (1979)(mental hospital institutionalization); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1935-36, 52 L.Ed.2d 531, 537 (1977) (family living arrangements); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 214, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1532, 32 L.Ed.2d 15, 24 (1972) (freedom of religion in light of compulsory education); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1212, 31 L.Ed.2d 551, 558-59 (1972) (termination of parental rights); Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070, 1077-78 (1925) (private schooling)
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The en banc court declined to extend Pierce's parental-rights reasoning to a claimed right to obtain state-prohibited medical treatment for a child.

    Brandt v. Griffin · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · filed

    Pierce, 268 U.S. at 534–35 (holding that mandating compulsory attendance at public schools “unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control”) ... The question is whether this Nation’s history and tradition, as well as its historical understanding of ordered liberty, support the right of a parent to obtain for his or her child a medical treatment that, although the child desires it and a doctor approves, the state legislature deems inappropriate for minors. This court finds no such right in this Nation’s history and tradition.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Pierce v. Society of Sisters and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace