Topic:

Violation of such due process clause of such 14^th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Relief sought:

The County Attorney brought an action against Meyer for such violation of Siman Act that relating to forbidding the teaching of any foreign language other than English.

  The issue arises in this case whether Meyer violated the Act of Nebraska, which is known as the Siman Act. Another issue arises whether the right of Meyer under the 14^th Amendment of the US Constitution is violated by this Act or not.

Issue (s):

Facts:

The defendant, Robert T, Meyer, was teaching German Language in a room of schoolhouse at Hampton, Nebraska to a fourth-grader, Raymond, who is only ten years old. Nebraska, in the year 1919, enacted the law called relating to teaching such foreign languages in this state and imposed restrictions to teach foreign languages. The Hamilton County Attorney discovered that the defendant taught German to Raymond.

The plaintiff charged the defendant for violating or breaching the Siman Act in this territory. The defendant was tried, as well as convicted and fined $25 by the district court and the Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed that conviction of the defendant, Meyer. The defendant then appealed to this Supreme Court of the US for dismissing or reconsideration the decision of the courts of Nebraska.

Finding of Trial Court:

For the plaintiff of the case, the state of Nebraska.  

Finding of the Appellate Court:

 The Appellate Court affirmed the perceptive below.

Reasoning:

Justice McReynolds stated in his decision of this case that such liberty should be protected by the rules of the Due Process Clause of the constitution of the US. The liberty of the citizen of this territory denoted not merely the freedom from such bodily restraint or control, but also it denoted the right of any individual for engaging any lawful occupation of his life, right to enter into the contract, enjoy privileges of rules recognized under common law that are essential for pursuing the happiness of any freeman. The attorney of the Appellant of the Supreme Court produced an example of a prominent democrat and an Irish-Catholic who failed to attempt the injunction to the clauses of Siman Act of Nebraska. The oral arguments articulated conflicting explanations or interpretation in this Act concerning the effect of the experience of World War I.

There is a dissenting view of the judgment of this case that the statue of Nebraska did not impose any undue restriction on the teachers. In another case of Bartels v. State of Iowa, 1923, the court of law also discussed the dissenting view of the case. At the end of the discussion, the Supreme Court declared the concerned statue of Nebraska as unconstitutional, as it violated the liberty of any citizen protected by such Due Process Clause of the Constitution of such  14^th Amendment.

Significance:

The teachers of Nebraska can able to teach any foreign language to the students or any person, as the clause of the statute is unconstitutional and opposed to the liberty of the citizen. The judgment of this case also established in the case of Pierce, vs. Society of the Sisters 1925. 

References

Bartels vs. Iowa, 262 US 404 (1923) https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep262/usrep262404/usrep262404.pdf

Meyer vs. the State of Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923) https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/262us390

Pierce, Governor of Oregon, et al. v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 US 510 (1925) https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/268us510