Farrington v. Tokushige

Farrington v. Tokushige
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 21, 1927 Decided February, 1927
Full case name	Farrington, Governor, et al. v. T. Tokushige et al.
Citations	273 U.S. 284 (more)
Prior history	Injunction granted, United States District Court for the District of Hawaii; affirmed, 11 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1926); cert. granted, 273 U.S. 677
Holding
The Territory of Hawaii's law making schools that teach foreign languages without a permit illegal violates the due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice William H. Taft Associate Justices Oliver W. Holmes, Jr. · Willis Van Devanter James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis George Sutherland · Pierce Butler Edward T. Sanford · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinions
Majority	McReynolds, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Amendment V and Amendment XIV, Act 30, Special Session 1920, legislature of Hawaii

Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284 (1927), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down the Territory of Hawaii's law making schools that teach foreign languages without a permit illegal because it violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

Decision

The Court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

The foregoing statement is enough to show that the school Act and the measures adopted thereunder go far beyond mere regulation of privately supported schools where children obtain instruction deemed valuable by their parents and which is not obviously in conflict with any public interest. They give affirmative direction concerning the intimate and essential details of such schools, intrust their control to public officers, and deny both owners and patrons reasonable choice and discretion in respect of teachers, curriculum and text-books. Enforcement of the Act probably would destroy most, if not all, of them; and, certainly, it would deprive parents of fair opportunity to procure for their children instruction which they think important and we cannot say is harmful. The Japanese parent has the right to direct the education of his own child without unreasonable restrictions; the Constitution protects him as well as those who speak another tongue.

The Court stated “owners, parents and children” are guaranteed rights by the due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment and Amendment XIV, with reference to Meyer v. Nebraska, Bartels v. Iowa, and Pierce v. Society of Sisters.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 273
• Meyer v. Nebraska
• Pierce v. Society of Sisters