Document Type
Article
Abstract
Although Wisconsin v. Yoder is over fifty years old and clearly part of the canon of free exercise law, its meaning is surprisingly contested in a case the Supreme Court decided to hear in early 2025, Mahmoud v. Taylor. In Mahmoud, the plaintiffs are parents who balked at their children being exposed to readings and lessons during the school day that ran counter to their religious views on sexual morality. Their main argument is that they should win because Yoder is directly on point. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument holding that Yoder is basically a one-off case and its principles do not apply beyond the contours of that case. Both sides mistake the significance of Yoder for Mahmoud. Yoder is not limited to its facts. It is a case with a holding that applies beyond into cases where parents are compelled to send their children to school, over their religious objections, and where the state asserts a general interest in children attending public schools. But to fashion the rule of Yoder this way is to see how the case may not be as relevant as the plaintiffs in Mahmoud believe. Yoder is neither as narrow as the Fourth Circuit said it was, nor as broad as the Mahmoud plaintiffs want it to be. Far from settling Mahmoud v. Taylor, Yoder might end up being more of a distraction. Whatever side wins in Mahmoud, it won’t win because of Yoder.
Recommended Citation
Chad Flanders, Is Wisconsin v. Yoder Limited to Its Facts? 16 ConLawNOW 23 (2025)