Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Sarah Prince, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted for allowing her 9-year-old niece to distribute religious literature in violation of Massachusetts child labor laws. She argued this violated her rights to direct the child’s upbringing and exercise religion. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that parental and religious rights are not absolute and can be limited to protect children’s welfare.

3) Why It Mattered
This case marked an important limit on parental and religious liberty, affirming that the state has authority to step in for the health and safety of children.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: Strong precedent for state authority in child protection and welfare.
• Took Away: Absolute parental/religious control when it endangers children’s well-being.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
The Court properly balanced liberty with child welfare. Critics argue it gave states broad discretion to intrude into family life.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
Parents have broad rights, but they cannot use religion or parental authority to override child safety laws. The state can act to protect minors from harm.

• Parental Rights
• Child Welfare
• Religion
• Labor Laws