21

Many parents "force" their children to receive religious education. Does the children's U.S. First Amendment right to freedom of religion allow them to get the police to stop their parents from doing this sort of thing? Or do First Amendment rights not apply to minors?

Smithey
  • 353
  • 2
  • 6

1 Answers1

51

It's less that the first amendment does not apply to minors and more that the first amendment does not apply to the parents' conduct. The first amendment to the U.S. constitution reads (emphasis added):

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.

Thus the first amendment applies to the conduct of the federal government (and has its reach extended to state governments through Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)). The parents' conduct, while perhaps objectionable morally, does not violate the children's rights under the first amendment, as they are neither the state nor the federal government.

Trish
  • 39,097
  • 2
  • 79
  • 156
Alex C
  • 722
  • 7
  • 12
  • 20
    There may be legal remedies if the parent's conduct rises to the point of abusive OR if the child is sufficiently old enough, could apply for legal emancipation. In general these are first amendment neutral (it's not that the end goal of the abuse is making you go to church/sunday school by blatant methods of child abuse in general that's illegal). Physically putting a child in a car is not in and of itself child abuse (otherwise we should line up CPS agents at every child friendly venue in the country and arrest parents whose children are throwing fits cause they don't want to leave). – hszmv Dec 17 '20 at 19:48
  • 3
    That's true, there may indeed be other ways which the parents' conduct could be legally objectionable (though it's difficult if not impossible to say without further details). I just wanted to answer the more narrow question posed on the applicability of the first amendment. – Alex C Dec 17 '20 at 20:47
  • 31
    Note that this confusion (about who exactly the First Amendment restricts the conduct of) seems to be rather common among Americans. I regularly see people trying to argue that the First Amendment should protect them from being censored or banned in private forums online. – Austin Hemmelgarn Dec 18 '20 at 00:07
  • 5
    @AustinHemmelgarn - They generally argue that it should, as you correctly said, not that it does. Some time back, people argued that the First Amendment should apply to states and municipal corporations (i.e. cities). It did not previously, but then it did. – Obie 2.0 Dec 18 '20 at 01:53
  • 1
    @hszmv Those causes of action arise out of statutes, not the constitution. – Acccumulation Dec 18 '20 at 01:58
  • @Acccumulation Federal law does provide a private right of action against anyone acting under color of usage to deprive someone of their constitutional rights, however. – CWill Dec 18 '20 at 06:11
  • 11
    @AustinHemmelgarn that's because people who "know their rights" don't actually know their rights. – RonJohn Dec 18 '20 at 09:49
  • 2
    @Acccumulation: All statues must be compliant with the U.S. constitution at all levels of government (per 14th Amendment) so in order for the parents to have custody of their children because of abusive treatment, the fact that it was to take the child to a religious institution does not matter, so long as the behavior is abusive. It is one thing to beat a child unconcious to take them to conversion therapy. It's another matter to physically put a child in a car to go to church, against the child's wishes to play video games all Sunday Morning. – hszmv Dec 18 '20 at 12:20
  • 1
    @AustinHemmelgarn - I'd wager your moderators have seen it even more regularly. – T.E.D. Dec 18 '20 at 16:12
  • 1
    @AustinHemmelgarn are you sure you aren't the one who is confused? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins – Hasse1987 Dec 19 '20 at 07:59
  • 2
    @Hasse1987 -- the Pruneyard decision is about the application of the California constitution, not the US constitution. – PJB Dec 19 '20 at 14:33
  • 1
    I believe the effect of the First Amendment could lead in the opposite direction. If a state were to pass a law protecting children from being forced by their parents to receive a religious education, that law could be challenged on the grounds that it violates the parents' right to the free exercise of religion. But I don't know how the courts would rule. – Mark Foskey Dec 20 '20 at 17:30
  • @PJB Of course, the point is it establishes that public forum doctrine can be extended to private entities. Which is why Trump cited it in the EO (obviously federal) against online censorship. A case reached the US supreme court just last year, Manhattan Community Access. So people arguing that the FA should protect their speech online, though not currently law, has enough merit to have survived motions to dismiss and be granted cert. – Hasse1987 Dec 21 '20 at 04:39
  • A more interesting question may be whether A1 protects a parental right to have a state not interfere with them forcing religious education on a child. – Randy Cragun Jun 24 '22 at 18:39