Bartels v. Iowa

262 U.S. 404, 43 S. Ct. 628, 67 L. Ed. 1047, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2656, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 628
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJune 4, 1923
Docket134, 181, 182, 440
StatusPublished
Cited by76 cases

This text of 262 U.S. 404 (Bartels v. Iowa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404, 43 S. Ct. 628, 67 L. Ed. 1047, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2656, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 628 (1923).

Opinions

[409]*409Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The several judgments entered in these causes by the Supreme Courts of Iowa, Ohio and Nebraska, respectively, must be reversed upon authority of Meyer v. Nebraska, decided today, ante, 390.

Number 134. Plaintiff in error was convicted of teaching pupils in a parochial school below the eighth grade to read German contrary to “An act requiring the use of the English language as the medium of instruction in all secular subjects in all schools within the State of Iowa,” approved April 10, 1919.1 He used English for teaching the common school branches, but taught young pupils to read German. The Supreme Court of the State held: The manifest design of this language statute is to supplement the compulsory education law by requiring that the branches enumerated to be taught shall be taught in the English language, and in no other. The evident purpose is that no other language shall be taught in any school, public or private, during the tender years of youth, that is, below the eighth grade.” 191 Iowa, 1060.

Numbers 181 and 182. Bohning and Pohl, of St. Johns Evangelical Congregational School, Garfield Heights, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, were severally convicted (102 [410]*410Ohio St. 474) of violating “An act to supplement section 7762 of the General Code . . . and to repeal section 7729, concerning elementary, private and parochial schools and providing that instruction shall be in the English language,” (108 Ohio Laws 614) approved June 5, 1919,2 which prohibits the teaching of German to pupils below the eighth grade.

Number 440. An injunction is sought against the Governor and Attorney General of the State and the Attorney for Platte County to prevent enforcement of “An act to declare the English language the official language of this State, and to require all official proceedings, records and publications to be in such language and all school branches to be taught in said language in public, private, denominational and parochial schools,” etc., approved April 14, [411]*4111921.3 This statute is subject to the same objections as those offered to the Act of 1919 and sustained in Meyer v. Nebraska-, supra. The purpose of the later enactment, as stated by counsel for the State, is to place beyond the possibility for legal evasion a prohibition against the teaching in schools of foreign languages to children who have not passed the eighth grade.” The Supreme Court considered the merits of the cause, upheld the statute, and refused an injunction. 187 N. W. 927.

McKelvie and Davis, formerly Governor and Attorney General, no longer occupy those offices. The cause is dismissed as to them. Otto F. Walter is now the County Attorney and the judgment below as to him must be reversed.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State of Iowa v. Mar'yo D. Lindsey Jr.
881 N.W.2d 411 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2016)
Tribett v. Shepherd
2014 Ohio 4320 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
Kramer v. New York City Board of Education
715 F. Supp. 2d 335 (E.D. New York, 2010)
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson
2007 Ohio 6948 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007)
Savoie v. Grange Mutual Insurance
620 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1993)
Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co.
1993 Ohio 134 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1993)
People v. Bennett
501 N.W.2d 106 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1993)
Sheridan Road Baptist Church v. Department of Education
396 N.W.2d 373 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1986)
Bowman v. Bethel-Tate Board of Education
610 F. Supp. 577 (S.D. Ohio, 1985)
Iowa City Community School District v. Iowa City Education Ass'n
343 N.W.2d 139 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1983)
State v. Engerud
463 A.2d 934 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1983)
Crowley v. Smithsonian Institution
636 F.2d 738 (D.C. Circuit, 1980)
Rudd v. Ray
248 N.W.2d 125 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1976)
Davis v. Page
385 F. Supp. 395 (D. New Hampshire, 1974)
Robinson v. Conlisk
385 F. Supp. 529 (N.D. Illinois, 1974)
Sugarman v. Dougall
413 U.S. 634 (Supreme Court, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 U.S. 404, 43 S. Ct. 628, 67 L. Ed. 1047, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2656, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartels-v-iowa-scotus-1923.