Meyer v.

Nebraska
Ben Wong
Violation of the First Amendment?
● Siman Act: restricted the use of a foreign language as a method of instruction
for students in the state of Nebraska; all subjects must be taught in English
○ Prohibited foreign language from being a field of study for students below the
eighth grade
● Robert Meyer, a teacher at a private Lutheran school, was charged with
violating the Siman Act for teaching German bible stories to a 10-year-old
student during recess.
● Does the Siman Act infringe upon the rights granted by the First Amendment?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Initial Ruling
● Meyer argued the Siman Act violated his right to teach, a
liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause.
● The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled against Meyer,
declaring Meyer violated the statute and the Siman Act
did not infringe upon the Due Process Clause.
● The Nebraska Supreme Court ordered Meyer to pay a
$25 fine ($320 in 2020, adjusted for inflation) for
violating the Siman Act, citing it was a “valid exercise of
police power.”
Appeal
Meyer, along with Arthur
Mullen, his attorney,
appealed to the Supreme
Court of the United States,
attributing the Siman Act
to "...hatred, national
bigotry and racial prejudice
engendered by the World
War."
Attorneys on behalf of
the State of Nebraska
claimed, "...it is the
ambition of the State to
have its entire population
100 percent American."
Verdict
● In a 7 to 2 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled the
State of Nebraska violated the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
● In his decision, Justice James McReynolds declared that an individual’s
“liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause extends beyond “freedom
from bodily restraint”; “liberty” also includes a teacher’s right to teach in
a foreign language and a parent’s right to oversee the upbringing of their
children as they wish.
● The State of Nebraska may have had a legitimate interest in encouraging
the growth of an American population that can engage in discussions of
civic matters, but the means the state chose to pursue this objective was
excessive, as “[an] individual has certain fundamental rights which must
be respected.”
“The protection of the
Constitution extends to
all, to those who speak
other languages as well
as to those born with
English on the tongue.”
—Justice James C. McReynolds
Effect on English-language
Learners
● By overturning the initial ruling of the Nebraska Supreme Court, the
Supreme Court of the United States helped change the perception of and
the opportunities for emergent bilingual students, as well as establishing
the lawsuit as a precedent in cases relating to bilingualism.
● Although a state may legislate a language to be used during instruction in
schools, a state may not dictate the language used for instruction that
occurs when school is not in session.
● Meyer v. State of Nebraska underscores the protections and liberties
entitled to emergent bilinguals, emphasizing the sentiment that
legislation cannot marginalize the rights of emergent bilinguals that
others are entitled to.
References
Cline, A. (2019). Government Regulation of Private Schools: Meyer v.
Nebraska (1923). ThoughtCo. Retrieved from
https://bit.ly/3af7it0

Meyer v. State of Nebraska. (n.d.). Cornell Law School. Retrieved from

https://bit.ly/2RwDwrn

Wright, W. E. (2018). Landmark Court Rulings Regarding English

Language Learners. Colorin Colorado. Retrieved from
https://bit.ly/2G3tecR