Berkley Center

In Prince v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court rejected a parent’s challenge to a state statute forbidding children from soliciting for religious purposes in public places. The parent alleged that the state law violated both her and her child’s right to free exercise as well as her right to raise her child in her chosen religious faith. The Court noted that these rights have been recognized by the Court in cases like Pierce v. Society of Sisters. However, the state may more severely limit the rights of children than adults in the name of public safety and for the purpose of encouraging the growth and development of the nation’s youth. For example, the state may regulate child labor, require school attendance, and mandate childhood vaccinations. In this case, the Court found that protecting children from the dangers inherent in preaching and soliciting for religious purposes on the street was an appropriate goal for the state. While the same law applied to adults would be unconstitutional, the unique role of the state vis-à-vis children justified the statute here. This case illustrates the tension present in many of the Court’s cases between protecting the rights of children and ensuring their protection.