Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
#7 Prince v. Massachusetts
65 Plays7 months ago
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Prince v. Massachusetts.
Massachusetts has adopted child labor laws prohibiting children from selling periodicals on the street, and prohibiting adults from making children work illegally. SP is a Jehovah’s Witness who would distribute religious literature on the street. Her children and her niece begged and cried to join her. SP was confronted by authorities, charged, and ultimately convicted of violating child labor laws. SP says that the government is using inapplicable law to interfere with her parental rights, and her and the child’s religious freedom.
The question before the court: do the state laws prohibiting child labor interfere with parental rights and religious freedoms?
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to Episode and Hosts
00:00:00
Speaker
Hi there, welcome to Relitigated, the show where five friends who are absolutely not lawyers attempt to retry a real Supreme Court case. I'm your host, Jarrett, and this is episode seven, Prince v. Massachusetts. Two quick notes before we get started. First, as always, we try our best to represent the facts and decisions in the case as accurately as possible, but we're not lawyers and nothing in this episode should be taken as legal advice.
00:00:27
Speaker
Second, if you enjoy the podcast, please support us by subscribing, rating, leaving us a comment, and telling your friends. We could really use the help in getting the word out. If you like, you can also find us on YouTube and Instagram. Our handle is at relitigatedpodcast. Thank you so much for your support. Okay, with that out of the way, let's start the show. It's roughly the same curriculum that we took to become Supreme Court justices. It's almost the same.
00:00:57
Speaker
We digress. Yes. Order in the court. As good a place to start as any. Hi there. Welcome to the Relitigated podcast. I am your host, Jared, and I am joined by my co-host, Nikki. How are you, Nikki? I am amazing. Excellent. We also have with us three friends who will be role playing as our justices for this episode. First, we have Associate Justice Adam. What's up?
00:01:22
Speaker
Hello, it's important to note, in addition to also not being a lawyer or a Supreme Court justice, I've also never been a plaintiff or a defendant in any criminal case, at least not with the current legal name that I'm using today. Thank you. Wow. Not yet, you haven't. That was very precise. Today will be learned. We also have Associate Justice Chris. Hello, Associate Justice Chris. Hello, Associate, not Justice, Derek.
00:01:50
Speaker
And finally, we have our Chief Justice, Sarah. What's up, Sarah? Not much. Hey, EA, if you're listening to this, sponsor us. They absolutely are. What are you? Are you kidding? If you're new to the show, here's how this works.
Podcast Format and Case Introduction
00:02:03
Speaker
Nikki and I have selected a real Supreme Court case, and our justices do not know what case we have selected for them this episode. Nikki will be introducing the case to us and walking us through the facts so we can all get familiar with the details.
00:02:16
Speaker
The justices are free to ask us factual questions during this time and we will answer those questions as best as we can. Next we'll move into oral arguments where Nikki will role play as the petitioner and I will role play as the respondent. We each get seven minutes to make our case during which the justices can interrupt us and ask any probing questions that they'd like.
00:02:34
Speaker
When the arguments are over, the justices will deliberate and deliver their own opinions. The final rulings do not need to be unanimous. Majority opinion will win. Even if two or more justices agree in principle or pick a side, they can disagree as to specifically why they've picked that side. Once we've had our fun with our mock hearing, Nikki and I will reveal what the Supreme Court actually decided and we will talk about how we feel about the actual results and why this case matters. Sound good to everyone? Let's do it.
00:03:04
Speaker
Let's get it on as they say. Yes. The common court phrase. You know, as they say in court. Yeah. All the time. Awesome. Nikki, I'll turn it over to you for the facts of the case.
Facts of Prince v. Massachusetts
00:03:18
Speaker
All right. Our story starts in Brockton, Massachusetts with SP. SP is the mother of two sons and has legal custody of her nine year old niece, BMS.
00:03:34
Speaker
SP and her husband are ordained Jehovah's Witness ministers, and all of the children are practicing Jehovah's Witnesses as well. As a part of her ministry, SP would take to the streets of Brockton each week and distribute religious literature in exchange for voluntary contributions. On occasion, she would also bring the children to distribute literature, but the attendance officer at their school warned SP not to do that.
00:04:01
Speaker
The reason why SP was warned is because at this time, Massachusetts child labor laws prohibited boys under 12 and girls under 18 from selling newspapers, magazines, or other merchandise, or working as a shoe shiner, or engaging in any other trade in any street or public place.
00:04:23
Speaker
additionally yep um
00:04:27
Speaker
Why the age discrepancy? We might not know, but that's weird. I have no idea. Additionally... Okay. Somebody said something. I know. I was like, wait, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. I had the same question in my brain. Teenage girls can be shoe shiners, but teenage boys can't be shoe shiners. Did I get that wrong? Let's see, girls have to be 18 and not boys 12. Oh, never mind. So they're putting boys to work early. Yeah.
00:04:54
Speaker
I just can't, I appreciate that the but the the two male justices were just sort of like, yeah, the discrepancy is fine by us. No, no, I had this i had the same question. I was just like, ah when do I ask this question? I'm really glad that our chief justice stepped up here. I save.
00:05:16
Speaker
Unfortunately, i i do not I do not have an answer. okay Okay. All right, continue. Some things are forever a mystery. You may proceed. I'll go down to YouTube rabbit hole later. Labor laws also prohibited giving a minor any article with the knowledge that the minor would then intend to sell that article. Finally,
00:05:38
Speaker
laws prohibited any parent or guardian of a minor to compel or permit them to work in violation of these laws. All right. Everybody got that? Wait, what about like Girl Scouts? Um, I don't know that that counts as a commercial trade. Oh, maybe. I mean, maybe that'll be a case in the future. All right. I'm spiraling. Continue. It's a nonprofit organization, I believe. Well, maybe.
00:06:06
Speaker
Yeah. There are five of them. I'll look it up. Okay. So, uh, back to SP, uh, on December 18, she was preparing to leave, uh, when the children asked to go with her, she refused at first, but then they began crying and she relented together. They traveled downtown and started distributing their literature to passers by on the street.
00:06:32
Speaker
Later in the evening, the school attendance officer approached SP and asked for the name of the niece, BMS, but SP refused to give it. She did, however, identify the school that BMS attended when asked. The attendance officer reiterated his warnings and said he would give her five minutes to clear off the street.
00:06:53
Speaker
SP admitted that she had given BMS the literature to distribute to people in exchange for voluntary contributions and is quoted as saying, quote, neither you nor anybody else can stop me. This child is exercising her God given right and her constitutional right to preach the gospel and no creature has a right to interfere with God's commands. Nonetheless, SP departed with BMS shortly thereafter.
00:07:20
Speaker
Ultimately, SP was charged with three separate offenses. The first one was for refusing to identify BMS to the public officer who was attempting to enforce the state's child labor laws. Second, she was charged with furnishing articles to a minor with intent to sell those articles. Lastly, as the child's guardian, SP was charged with allowing her to work in defiance of the law. SP was convicted on all three counts and sentenced to pay fines, but she appealed the conviction to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the grounds that the laws violated her First Amendment right to free press and religion. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the first conviction, but upheld the other two, ruling that some limits to the freedoms of press and religion are acceptable to protect children.
00:08:14
Speaker
SP again appealed her case arguing for a second time that her First Amendment rights of press and religion were being violated and also adding that her due process rights under the 14th Amendment as well as her parental rights were being abridged. So now the question falls to our court. Do the Massachusetts child labor laws violate s SP's 14th Amendment due process rights by
Initial Skepticism and Legal Implications
00:08:39
Speaker
preventing her free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment?
00:08:44
Speaker
All right. Any questions? Well, this is the point in the show where I want to like give my knee jerk. Absolutely not. Response here before I hear any arguments and just go with that. This is bait. I can feel it. I can feel it in my bones. 100% bait. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, no, no questions by me. Yeah. Other than what I've already asked. So anybody knows about the Girl Scouts and the law. First of all, how dare you? Second of all, who are you? Who are you people? Um, okay.
00:09:18
Speaker
I feel like, i'm yeah, I'm being inclined to a very aggressive, knee-jerk response to this. And I'm really, really curious to see how Jared argues his side of this, as usual. Oh, no. Are we going to have to backtrack on our on our free speech absolutist points of views? No, it's a different amendment. We're talking about freedom of religion. Oh, wait, no. It's the same amendment. We should know this. No, it's the same one. Guys, we say we are not educated in the law.
00:09:49
Speaker
Or the Constitution, apparently. We work in corporate America. This is not the same. Any factual questions, otherwise we will just move into oral arguments. um How old are these kids again?
00:10:04
Speaker
The niece, as far as, the niece is nine. niece is nine okay okay The boys are older, but we I don't think we know their exact ages. because Nobody gives a shit about them, I guess. Probably because they're older than 12. It's just they got a lot more time than me to decide their destiny, you know, just generally speaking. Yeah, nine is nine is quite young and impressionable. You should probably be in school and not, you know, yeah whatever it is you're doing maybe in Brockton, Massachusetts.
00:10:34
Speaker
Ready to hear some arguments? I'm so ready. All right. let arguably So, uh, Nikki is the petitioner.
SP's Argument: Parental Rights vs. Labor
00:10:41
Speaker
She is representing SP in this case, and she will be going first. I'm going to go ahead and put seven minutes on the clock for her. This is not the role I expected for each of you. I'm very excited. I'll start the timer as soon as you start. Okay. Uh, let me find my place. Okay. All right. I'm ready to go.
00:11:04
Speaker
How about it? So the state law in question concerns labor. However, what is at issue here is not labor. As you will see, this case is actually about the government's intrusion into parental rights and religious freedoms, specifically targeting a group that is unpopular and poorly understood in our society.
00:11:31
Speaker
Parents are the primary providers of custody and care of children, not the state. The state cannot necessarily provide the sheltering, guidance, care, and preparation for adulthood that children need throughout their childhood. Parents also have the freedom to bring up their children the way they wish, including teaching them their faith. Parents are and should be authority in their own household and in how their children are reared.
00:12:01
Speaker
This case is also about religious freedom, including that of a religious minority. The First Amendment still applies, even though this child and her family do not practice a religion that is common, well-known, or popular to the American people. Once again, parents have the right to teach their children in the ways of their faith. Children also have the right to religion and to religious observance.
00:12:27
Speaker
This family scripture includes an obligation to preach the gospel. This is in line with other religions who seek to serve and educate others. The child in this case wishes to share the gospel by spending a few minutes giving people literature. It is the way that she observes and practices, and the state stepping in to limit this abridges the child's religious liberty, which she was exercising in the company of her legal guardian.
00:12:57
Speaker
The court has previously protected children's religious education, ah such as in the case of Pierce versus the Society of Sisters, and education in languages other than English, as in Meijer versus Nebraska. That is to say, the state has previously respected private family life and avoided government intrusion into it.
00:13:20
Speaker
Yet, Massachusetts is using police power and government intrusion to undermine the sacred sacred, private interests of family and religion. Think about it. The law in question concerns labor. However, what this child was doing was not labor. The child, yes.
00:13:43
Speaker
Sorry, was it not labor? Wasn't she selling religious pamphlets? Did I miss that? Actually, I was just about to address that. That was what a wonderful question. No, go go ahead. Customers by were welcome to donate five cents, but they were not required to do so to obtain a copy of the literature. Classic rope-a-dope. There was no money received on the evening in question.
00:14:12
Speaker
And after some time under the watchful eye of SP, the child was taken home before 9 p.m. and was then tucked into bed. So this was religious practice, not labor. Hmm, okay. A state cannot put a limit on a freedom unless it is necessary to protect the child against some clear and present danger, as was decided in Shank versus the United States.
00:14:40
Speaker
There is no such danger here. BMS was on the street with her guardian. This was not during school hours and she was not being harmed. And with that, I will take any other questions that the court has for me.
00:14:55
Speaker
So there was nowhere else that this child needed to be, like definitely not during school hours. Like this was like free game. The child was at home and SP was leaving to distribute literature. The child begged to go with her, even though SP originally said no, but then she relented. Hmm. Curious. Okay. No further questions for me at this time. I just want to point out that no money was received.
00:15:25
Speaker
That's a big one for me. but tar It feels yeah like we're skirting by on a severe technicality here. there are Yeah, they weren't selling anything. I mean, the the the donations were voluntary. but um it It sounds like the market valued their product at an extremely low price. This is like a less ah worse than like a lemonade stand. You know what I mean? ah Is it?
00:15:50
Speaker
I mean, if the kid is with their guardian and their guardian is preaching on the street, well, okay, we can argue. We can argue later. I want to hear what the heck Jared is saying. I'm all about free speech, but like there's a difference between somebody voicing free speech autonomously and somebody being used as a like a implement of free speech by their guardian. But anyway, that's not a question. That's just me editorializing. I don't think that's allowed. Anyway, Jared, sorry.
00:16:19
Speaker
Well, you got the powdered wig, so you can do what you want. Yeah, it's true. No one has yet to pry it from my scalp. Are you all done with the petitioner side? There's still time left, so I don't necessarily want to take it unless everyone agrees that it's done. Yeah, I don't try to.
00:16:37
Speaker
take up all the time by, you know, bloviating and, you know, so. I'm trying to provide you with the full time allotted to you. You don't have to take it, but I'm doing the right thing here. I don't need it to get the point across, sir, is all I'm saying. I have a question. These are the arguments that we want to hear, okay? I have a question. Honestly. I have a question. Did the daughter ever get interviewed in any capacity? Do we have her thoughts on any of this?
00:17:06
Speaker
Uh, there was some testimony, but the, uh, it was previously like excluded. Like the court specifically said that we're going to set that aside and not consider it she's period of time in American history when children are just property of their parents. Okay. Roger that. but She's not, um, the boys, they're older, right? They're teenagers, presumably. I think Something like that. So there really wasn't very much information about the boys at all. Were they part of this traveling proselytization roadshow? Or were they like, nope, we're going to the pub and we're going to learn how to make horseshoes. The children were brought along and they were allowed. Children, plural. I'm guessing that they were over the legal age.
00:17:58
Speaker
They're just not sort of involved in this case, of the way that the girl was. Yeah. They were, they were, they were old enough that everyone's like, yep, you chose to be here. Okay. You're not missing elementary school or whatever. Okay. Now we're at time. Perfect. I'm really glad we filled this air with whatever it is we just did. up we clari We got all those clarifying questions out of the way. Yes. Okay. Uh, Nikki put seven minutes on the clock for me. Let me know when you're ready.
00:18:27
Speaker
All right, I am ready. Okay, here we go.
Counterargument: Child Labor Laws Importance
00:18:32
Speaker
Miss Chief Justice, and may it please the court, first of all, quick to address a misrepresentation from the petitioner that the children had nowhere the child had nowhere else to be. The school attendance officer had warned the family previously because they had known the child to be proselytizing during the day on previous occasions. So the case that is in front of us today is actually the end result of a series of infractions.
00:18:59
Speaker
Okay, the Massachusetts laws prohibiting child labor have nothing to do with the free exercise of religion or freedom of the press. It is well established that minors are legally distinct from adults, and much of that distinction is due to the vulnerability of minors in our society.
00:19:18
Speaker
In order to protect minors from abuse at the hands of adults who they implicitly trust or cannot flee, it is important to draw the line between the two groups and enact common sense safeguards. The child labor laws in Massachusetts are exactly that. Laws that protect children from exploitation at the hands of the adults around them. There is a power imbalance between a child and an adult, physically and in mental maturity.
00:19:46
Speaker
An adult can easily coerce or force a child into servitude at the expense of their health, education, or even life. A child may not have enough life experiences to know that they are being wronged. And even if they do, they may not have the capacity to free themselves. These laws allow us to live in a world where children can just be children instead of developing black lung in a mine or being maimed by machinery.
00:20:14
Speaker
None of these laws were enacted to target a particular religion or group of people. There is no mention of religious activities whatsoever in these child labor laws. They are a simple acknowledgement that we as a society owe minors a minimum level of protection from abuse and exploitation.
00:20:33
Speaker
Make no mistake about it. The petitioner in this case is not arguing that the laws in Massachusetts are unfairly preventing the child from exercising her freedom of religion or of the press. The petitioner is arguing that the laws are preventing her, an adult, from exploiting a child for the adults' religious beliefs.
00:20:53
Speaker
This is an immensely important distinction. The petitioner is arguing that her religious beliefs demand the pressing of a minor into service and that it is against her rights to prevent her from pressing that minor into service.
00:21:07
Speaker
The free exercise of religion is a bedrock principle of our Republic, but surely it cannot be allowed to run roughshod over the welfare of another person. Your rights to any freedom have to end where another person's right to their self and their own protection begins. If there can be no restraint placed upon the rights enumerated in the various amendments, then all criminals will share a religion where the laws of the state do not apply to them.
00:21:37
Speaker
Imagine a religion that demands sacrificial murder as a sacrament. Is calling murder a crime a violation of their free exercise of religion? Of course it isn't. There are logical limits where the right of the individual to exercise their religion ends and another individual's rights begin. I want to hear more about this religion, actually, where you have to kill people. Yeah, I was like, that's it's pretty graphic.
00:22:00
Speaker
well That's the slippery slope that you get to choose and potentially choose today. That's the Old Testament. Is there a church nearby I can go and sign up and learn more? All right, reserving my time. how Oh, how quickly industrialists would convert their factories to churches and welcome tiny pious hands to pick through gnashing gears if we fail to recognize this simple fact.
00:22:23
Speaker
Children are worthy of protection for the good of society, no matter what any religion has to say on the matter. Any exemption from this fact on religious grounds or otherwise would create a hole in our system of laws that would free all criminals. The 14th Amendment to process clause argument is equally as absurd.
00:22:45
Speaker
The very existence of child labor laws means that the state has removed your ability to freely practice your religion without due process. No, it has not. It has laid out a minimum level of protections for children informed by much of our history where we did not do that. And the petitioner just doesn't want doesn't want it to apply to them. The state has no problem with SP distributing religious literature on her own.
00:23:11
Speaker
The problem is having the child do the labor on your behalf, regardless of what the labor is. To summarize, children are a distinct group that deserves protection. The Massachusetts laws prevent adults from exploiting children by prohibiting them from being put to work. Enforcing those laws on behalf of the child it does not prevent the petitioner from practicing her religion.
00:23:34
Speaker
She can still pray and worship and speak about religion as she wishes. The only thing that she can't do is make a nine year old to do the labor on her behalf. That's it. That's what this comes down to. Yes. Question. Um, getting hung up on the word labor here, once again, labor is defined in the law is a child being given any article with the intent to distribute for uh, potentially for the exchange of monetary value. Okay. So the fact that SP was not saying, Hey, buy these, it wasn't like a, you know, buy this pamphlet for five cents. It was like, Oh, you can donate, but here's a pamphlet. Like the kid was just handing out papers. The child was raising money for a cause other than herself. In fact, yeah, the child was doing labor and not getting paid at all.
00:24:31
Speaker
Not all that. The child was pressed into service of doing this woman's ministry. Well, maybe she got like a cookie at home. This is kind of what I was getting at with the whole, do we know what the kid thought about this? Like, was she all about- Yeah, maybe the kid was like, oh my God, this is my favorite activity. The laws are designed specifically because the child at nine years old doesn't have the agency to know. They just know what they have been Jared children yearn for the minds distribution rack like like yeah the final day children handing out literature is not actually really a problem to us the problem is the exchange of money it's it's converting it into a labor and something that if the child just like drew a bunch of pictures and went outside and distribute only wouldn't care the point was an adult gave them something and said you go do this now that's true i would feel much better about this if the kid made up the religion.
00:25:23
Speaker
It doesn't have the agency or the life experience to know that they're being exploited. And the real problem here is they're trying to poke a hole through which everybody else will move through. Any final questions?
00:25:44
Speaker
No questions. All right. and Then deliberations are upon you. All right.
Deliberation: Religious Freedom vs. Child Protection
00:25:51
Speaker
Let's deliberate. Hey, he made it sound like a threat. just Who wants to go first? Deliberations be upon you.
00:26:02
Speaker
the odds in a in your favor Okay. Yeah. Listen, um, I feel like how psyched the kid is about the whole participatory aspect is important. If this child's like, man, I'd really rather be watching Scooby-Doo or some other area per ever appropriate form of child's entertainment, like Yeah, I kind of rule that the kid shouldn't be forced to sit around and hand out pamphlets, especially if there's monetary value exchange. But if the kid's like, yes, I love this pamphlet, I've read it back to back, I know every word, and I want to proselytize it because I truly, personally, as an agent with free will, wish to spread this message to the people of Proctan, Massachusetts.
00:26:49
Speaker
It needs to know. Sorry, that part's very funny to me. Having been to Brockton Massachusetts, it's very funny. ah I just feel like how how psyched the child is is an important factor in whether or not they've been pressed into service. Is this willing or voluntary or or is it not? And that's kind of like... We can give you the direct quote from her if you really, really want it. Well, the court, though, they did say that, like,
00:27:18
Speaker
The actual court disposed of it, but this court doesn't seem interested in doing so. ok yeah so um I'm going to predict what she said. Court, I'm hella pumped to proselytize the tower or whatever it is we do. That's what she said. yeah She believed it was her religious duty to perform this work and that if she didn't do it, it would ah bring condemnation, quote, to everlasting destruction at Armageddon.
00:27:46
Speaker
a night yeah That's some conviction. I respect that. and The court decided that, wait, the court decided ah they threw that out. and keep They They said, you know, there was some testimony at trial, but it was excluded. They were like, all right, little kid, shut up. It's fine. Basically. Wow. We're going to strike all the testimony that was screamed at top volume from the stand. Yeah. Okay. Interesting.
00:28:16
Speaker
Nice. All right. Condemnation upon us all. Yes. Nikki and I decided to remove it because the actual court did, and so I didn't put it into my arguments. Okay. Well, it sounds like a nine-year-old that's very enthusiastic about the cause. Very, very enthusiastic. But I guess on that same logic, if we have a kid that is really enthusiastic about working in the coal mines, is that still something that we want?
00:28:46
Speaker
probably not. I could imagine as like, maybe like a 10 year old boy, the mines probably have a certain allure to them that you might want to check out. um Yeah, no, I've heard that. Yeah, not that like, you know, religious pamphlets are like the the the mines, but I don't know, she did bring up Armageddon. So like, the stakes here must be pretty high for her.
00:29:09
Speaker
That is true. If she feels that the stakes are that high, then maybe she feels like she has no other choice, which could want or be coercion. But then again, if she was like, yeah, the world's going to end if you guys don't check out my Pokemon, like we'd be having a different conversation right now. um the On the flip side though, like, okay, freedom of religion is important and it's clearly part of their religious beliefs that these acts are very important.
00:29:39
Speaker
less we bring upon condemnation and Armageddon. and So, you know, we can't really say like, because she believes that Armageddon is upon us, that that's not okay. And she's being exploited like, yeah, okay. Maybe that's part of her religion. That's fine. I guess. Scary. We can enter a controversial opinion to the court record that I'm pro Armageddon actually. I mean, we could either reset in some ways. i think just just Just like yeah clear the rules. We've got some new rules now.
00:30:10
Speaker
Okay. So maybe if everybody stops selling pamphlets, we'll, we'll get there faster, but there's a lot of competing pamphlets. It's, it's hard to know. It's true. I don't, I don't think they were selling, they were just distributing. Yeah. And so they weren't really selling. I mean, they were raising money like a fundraiser, but like, I don't know. I, when I was a kid, I did fundraisers too. Yeah. Girl, I was a Girl Scout. I'm like, I was selling cookies.
00:30:37
Speaker
There's two points that are making me loathe to agree with ah with old SP here, which is that one, this kid seems pretty bought into this cause. I mean, it's not our place to judge how or why she's bought into this cause. The fact remains she is, seemingly. And yeah, it's a whole volunteer effort. And the fact that they took no money in, that's really sticking in my craw. The fact that um They were putting this message out there to the fine, upstanding citizens of Brockton, Massachusetts, and nobody was paying for this message, presumably because they thought it was shit. I can't believe you just said, sticking in my craw. I'm alive recording. I don't know where. That was good. I kind of agree, though. I fear. I don't know.
00:31:29
Speaker
This kid's like, everyone needs to read this stupid pamphlet. And the people at Brockton, Massachusetts were like, no, shut up. And she kept doing it anyway. I don't know if I was a nine year old, it'd be easy for me to be dissuaded from that. I think I'm also still hung up though. And the fact that like, even though they weren't explicitly selling these things, SP was still explicitly asking for donations. So like, but they didn't get me. That's really funny. Did they get none? Was that clear? I thought that's what I heard. They have, they, they have, they have received money. Yeah. and But on, on the evening that she got yeah charged there particular her but and in previous times they had gotten, you know, ah contributions. But like a fact of this case, like in her being charged,
00:32:21
Speaker
Like, did they bring up the fact that they have received contributions or like, are we only looking at the night that she was charged where they didn't make a dime? I think that I do consider the previous times as well. I feel like, so they were distributing on public street side. They were at, um, you know, a place of worship too.
00:32:44
Speaker
And that's kind of playing into this for me as well. It's like they were not in a religious institution doing this or like, you know, like if they were doing this in the back of a church or something, that would be one thing, but they're out out there on public streets. um that's That's also just in my brain right now. It's like, this is something that, you know, kind of plays into it. But yeah, maybe it appears a little bit more like child labor-y if you're just like,
00:33:13
Speaker
on the side of a highway with a kid and they're handing out pamphlets for the little. You can't get these out in Target. I'm sorry. I cannot be doing this on a Target. but Sir, this is a Wendy's.
00:33:28
Speaker
i Okay. All right. Where is everybody leaning? like I feel the temperature in this court is very lukewarm. Yeah. i'm not I'm not sensing any shortness one way or another. I'm horrified to find myself ah finding nothing wrong with what this lady was doing with her kid. As much as I want to find fault with it, you know,
00:33:56
Speaker
as a person who is skeptical of organized religion in general. I really, really want to find fault in this, but I can't. Like this is extracurricular. She's not pulling her out of school. Apparently she did at some point pull her out of school. That part's nebulous to me. But again, it's like in like the timeframe that she was charged though, it was free game. It was ah it was extracurricular, like you said.
00:34:22
Speaker
And the kid said it herself, if I don't do this, the world will end. She's like, we're all going to die. We have to do this. We have to do this or Armageddon and ruination will fall upon all of our earthly courts or something like that. I'm sure. So I'm, I'm thinking like, is the only thing, like, is the biggest hang up here, the fact that they were acting, asking for donations, like if they were just handing these out,
00:34:49
Speaker
willy nilly and not asking for a dime. I feel like this wouldn't have been a case. Yeah. Yeah. it It does make it harder to find fault if there's no money being exchanged. Yeah. And I mean, what, how much money could they have gotten? Like a quarter? Apparently not much. Yeah. Like what are we doing? Who knows when this was. but That's true. That's true. That quarter is going to buy a whole hundred week's worth of rent. I wish. That would have been great. Take me back.
00:35:17
Speaker
So where where I am leaning is that yeah um they should be free to to do this. like i don't really i don't think um I kind of agree. I i don't think that they're kind of in the wrong here. i think you know they're handing out but They're not selling pamphlets. This is not a job. They're not employed. They are volunteering. um And so that's kind of where I'm leaning. Sounds like kind of a jerk, but not a criminal.
00:35:46
Speaker
Kids do volunteer activities all the time. I was, as a kid, I was volunteering left and right for random bullshit. And I volunteered for religious things too. Yeah. No, I kind of agree. i i feel I feel that, I don't know, I don't feel like this I feel like the labor laws are just taking a step a little bit too far. Like, why is this not okay? But kids selling lemonade at a lemonade stand with their parents right there asking for $2 per cup of lemonade, why is that okay? You know? Right. Okay. All right, Court. Well, I think this, I mean, we're like right on time here. We're making great time. Shockingly concordant this time. Yeah. I'm scared that we're going to get our,
Unanimous Decision for SP
00:36:35
Speaker
our shit rocked and it's going to be the complete opposite of what we're thinking. Or this is the foundation case for all religious volunteerism. Yeah. number This is the start of the hope is witnesses deep vendetta against the US court system. Yeah. Oh my God. Oh, next episode's going to be scary. Okay. This is more in medias res I think.
00:36:58
Speaker
So on the question of do the Massachusetts child labor laws violate S.P.'s 14th Amendment due process rights by preventing her free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment, how do you rule on that question? I would say based on this particular case, yes, it did violate.
00:37:25
Speaker
I'm still not 100% clear why child labor laws even got involved in the first place. I would say it's not even that. It's just that the child labor laws aren't even applicable here. This is just not even a labor situation. It's just like a volunteerism, like yeah now hanging out with mom, doing family stuff situation. It's not even- Feels like a stretch. Especially when the kid's like, if I don't do this, the world's going to end. That seems imperative. This kid is passionate about this.
00:37:51
Speaker
so that's actually actually a good So the question is that if the laws that are there violate um the first moment, but what if the law doesn't apply?
00:38:04
Speaker
That's what we're saying. What if no laws apply? Well, so I think in that case, there's this concept of the narrow question and the broad question. So the and the narrow question is you might say, we're only going to rule on this particular person's convictions or whatever. Like, oh, we're going to overturn this conviction or whatever, as opposed to the broad question, which is like the constitutional question. We're like, we're not going to strike down Massachusetts child labor laws because like,
00:38:33
Speaker
broadly. Those seem useful. We we do like those. Yeah, narrowly in this. So that's the thing that happens in Supreme Court a lot is one of the first, um my understanding is one of the first things that kind the justices kind of do when they, when they talk about cases is, are we going to rule on this narrowly or broadly? Does this apply just to this petitioner or does this apply to, you know,
00:38:56
Speaker
The the wider group now even a narrow decision still has broad impacts, you know If you tell sp that like we're going to overturn your convictions because this is fine other people will do this And so you are still I mean, it's not You know there it's not perfectly narrow, but it's certainly much more narrow than than telling Massachusetts the law as written is a violation of the first amendment and is in and not enforceable and Okay. Right. So like, let me propose this. Like if SP didn't just have her nine year old niece with her and she instead had like 13 nine year olds with her and none of them really believed in this whole Armageddon thing. They were just like asking for pennies and handing out pamphlets. I feel like that would have a much worse look, right? Like you're creating a child army to, to like work on this,
00:39:52
Speaker
street corner or this target and hand out pamphlets. It's very different than if they're not related to her, yes. Yeah. Maybe she has 13 kids under her guardianship. I don't know. I feel like the optics are worse the more kids that are around. She's just collecting kids. Yeah, she's just like collecting kids. they're all Suddenly, if she owns an orphanage, more children makes her image better. It's weird. Right. So it's like, oh yeah, I guess maybe there is like a little bit of a slippery slope there.
00:40:23
Speaker
So the the charges that SP came to this court with, originally she was charged with three things. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned one of them. So only two of them remained. One of them was ah charged with provided and convicted of providing a minor with materials, knowing that those materials would be exchanged for money. Interesting. interesting And secondly,
00:40:50
Speaker
ah as the guardian of a minor, allowing them to work under the definition of the law in defiance of that law. So those were the two charges that still remain. So the if you wanted to rule narrowly, you could just rule and on those charges, I think is how it would work.
00:41:12
Speaker
yeah I mean, yeah, you I mean, who's going to stop you and and sometimes it's more convenient to just focus on the narrow issue than and sidestep the broader one. Interesting. I do like convenience.
00:41:28
Speaker
I didn't realize we could rule with caveats. Yeah. I mean, it's our court. It's our world. That's a lot of power that I, again, didn't realize that I'd been afforded. You wear the wig. No one ever explained the rules when they put the wig on my head. It just whispers commands into my ears. We didn't go to law school. You have to write these long opinions. You can really explain yourself and why you think this and what you think the rules are going forward.
00:41:57
Speaker
That provide my opinions about things that aren't directly related to the case As long as I write them as part of you know, I mean, inform I think maybe if you include it as like a footnote or a side comment or something Yeah, yeah, you probably can do whatever you want Okay, so court do we think that we want to rule on this narrowly or broadly I I feel like I've already been looking at it from a pretty narrow lens But what say you?
00:42:25
Speaker
That, yeah, I think that was my, I think that was, that was what I was getting at is that I just feel like the, ah that it was not technically because she was not selling anything on behalf of her guardian. Um, that's, that's where I was going with that as I don't think it's. Yeah. but I agree. I agree with that. Very specific question. Also, I think this kid is just generally kind of spooky and I don't want to get in her bad side. So also true. Yeah. That's fair. Yeah. Okay.
00:42:55
Speaker
All right, well, I think with that being said, then yeah, I guess we're ready for final decisions. We need a little instinct for that. I was going to say, Jared, we should add a little sound effect in between our deliberations and then when we actually decide. The sound of a gavel or something. Yeah, get on that. Ooh, that's a good idea. I'd love to do sound effects as soon as we get enough listeners to generate enough revenue to pay for it.
00:43:28
Speaker
Okay, order in the court. We're ready to, what is it called? Hand down decisions? Bring down decisions. Yeah, no, we hand them down to the children who deliver them to the. Bustowing decisions upon. Bustow, actually. I like that quite a bit. Yeah, I like that too. We are ready to bestow our decisions down upon. If you are ready to receive them, small people. Even if you're not, they're coming. Adam or Chris, would you like to begin?
00:43:58
Speaker
Or I could start. You're the chief justice. I don't know. I like, I'm giving power to the associates to go first. What's the big idea? All right. You know, you're in charge for a reason. I freeze under. All right. All right. You know, right I could take the big bucks to go first. No, I'm going first. You guys lost privileges. All right. So my decision, if we're looking at this case from a narrow point of view is that the Massachusetts child labor laws did violate SPs and BMS's 14th amendment due process rights. I think that it was a little bit of an overreach. I feel like this kid was truly believing their purpose for why they were handing out these pamphlets. I also don't really think that SP was thinking, oh, I'm totally going to make bank on this. Like we're going to get five cents per pamphlet for sure. I think it was just like asking for donations was like a side part of that.
00:44:57
Speaker
um And yeah, with that being said, I do think it was a bit of an overreach and that maybe they should just let them pass out their religious pamphlets in peace as long as they're not doing it, I guess, when she should be in school.
00:45:11
Speaker
but Yeah, right? like keep Keep the kid in school and we're copacetic, right? like like It's completely different if her approach was to go up to people and like screech, yeah, I'll be damned and hand this pamphlet into their sweaty center palms. It'd be like, that's five cents, idiot.
00:45:31
Speaker
and she wouldn't leave them alone and cease prattling about damnation until she paid was paid or told. If that was like a a forced thing, if this was a a compulsory donation, that completely changes this. But you know it's just it's it's just a bunch of weirdos being weird in Brockton, Massachusetts, which you know is totally in character. But yeah, in ire my case in some, I think that the the character of what they're actually doing on the street, how they're going about the proselytization,
00:45:59
Speaker
how vigilant or strident they are about receiving funds in return for the proselytization, that completely changes things. And if they're just out there expressing their opinions and they're not pulling the kid out of school to do it, I fail to see any reason why their First Amendment rights should be abridged. Solid. All right, Chris, drive it home.
00:46:21
Speaker
Yeah, no, I agree. I believe that because ah the child was not selling anything, you know, I think that's the kind of key issue for me. um You know, they were just simply handing out the pamphlets with their legal guardian in a public place. um And i I just I don't think that the laws violate their 14th Amendment. All right. Unanimous decision. Way to go, team.
00:46:49
Speaker
Massachusetts law stays in place, wait but there is now a religious exemption, ah okay essentially, right? Because if anybody else does the same thing, they're gonna now look up this case and say, if it took it to the Supreme Court, they would say that that's fine. So you're not striking down the law, but you're kind of contextualizing it. right You can absolutely put your kid to work as long as they truly believe the world is ending. That's the exemption, I think. And, you know, with isn't the big thing about being a lawyer and or a judge being like, okay, well, let's look at this from the lens of a reasonable person, right? Like, again, if they were charging 25 bucks per pamphlet for their, you know, parietal about their religious beliefs, that would be different. But like asking for a wee five cent donation. Yeah, I feel like that's, you're probably not even gonna get it anyway. So that's probably fine. I still can't get over the fact that nobody in Brockton gave them a s cent that day. it Yeah, maybe they need to. They should probably go. They gotta work on their pitch. Clearly, they're not doing this very well. All right. All right, Jared. Is this what you tell us what really happened?
00:48:02
Speaker
Yes, on onto the ah ah results of this case.
Real Supreme Court Ruling: In Favor of Massachusetts
00:48:07
Speaker
I'm going to turn this one back on over to Nikki again to to fill us in on what actually happened. Okay. um And then also just to just a fun fact I'm going to throw in there. ah So the five cents that they were asking for the pamphlet, it's the equivalent of 88 cents today. Bargain by any stretch. Gotcha.
00:48:28
Speaker
and So anyway, okay. So this case was argued in December of 1943 and was decided the following month, January 1944. Later than I thought. Yeah, yeah. And yeah, yeah it was a 5-4 decision in favor of Massachusetts and the and the laws restricting child labor. Wow. Wow.
00:48:58
Speaker
So, divided court. Not here though. I'm sure, but midway through World War II, nobody wanted to hear whatever they were selling. Honestly, yeah.
00:49:12
Speaker
That could very well have been. ah So the reasoning of the of Justice Rutledge, who wrote the majority opinion, so he started out by saying all this stuff about, yeah, religion, family, privacy, these are sacred matters, this is like really important stuff, but family is not beyond regulation for the public interest, even with regard to religious liberty. So they're saying the rights of religion and parenthood are not limitless.
00:49:42
Speaker
So their reasoning was basically it's about the kids ah protecting the welfare of children. ah So society does have broader authority over children's activities than those of adults. And they talk about how the state is taking the parents' patriotic role. So ah in that role, the government is acting as sort of this legal guardian and protector to citizens who are unable to protect themselves versus um the police power role, which is where the government is like regulating and enforcing and like making people obey. So in the parents' patriot role, the state can put limits on parental control, such as by requiring that kids go to school and regulating child labor because there is a societal interest in safeguarding and protecting children from abuses and giving them opportunities to grow into healthy, quote, free and independent, unquote, citizens.
00:50:40
Speaker
um So they were like, it's about the kids. We got to think of the kids. And in their logic, claiming religion is not enough to nullify state authority.
00:50:52
Speaker
So, um and then they also said as an example, a parent cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child on religious grounds because the right to practice religion, quote, does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable diseases or the ladder to ill health or death. And come on. I wasn't ready for the vaccine argument today. Wow. We will come back to that later, I promise. I'm glad we've gotten here.
00:51:25
Speaker
So um also, there had been an argument. We didn't ah really get into this. I didn't get into it. But one of the arguments that had been made was that ah for Jehovah's Witnesses and their kids, the street is their church. ah So denying them access to the street for religious purposes basically excludes them from their place of worship and they were denied equal protection. OK, they better not be claiming tax exemption status anywhere else. so Yeah, they were.
00:51:54
Speaker
they were in their church. right okay Yeah, that makes me feel even better about our decision. that was But the court's response was like, quote, the argument hardly needs more than statement after what's been said to refute. They're basically like, get the fuck out of here. They're like, public highways are not religious property just because somebody says it. The interstates are not your churches, people.
00:52:20
Speaker
Can you imagine like, yeah, like Route 90, it's like, oh, no, this is a religious place now. um So yeah, they're like, they're not that the roads aren't there for street preaching. um So you can reasonably regulate people's behavior on public roads.
00:52:35
Speaker
I will say, quick aside, not unrelated, when I lived in Waco, Texas during college, ah there was a thing called church under the bridge that happened every week. I never actually went, but it was quite literally a church service every Sunday with a little stage and lawn chairs underneath Interstate 35 under the bridge.
00:52:59
Speaker
But it wasn't like in the interstate, was it? Like where all the cars are? No, it was directly under, you know, those like, like those like patches of gravel underneath. Oh, so it's in a location where if you want to join, you can just roll right up. But if you don't want to, then you just go. Yeah, you could just drive by. Yeah, just kind of slow down, put the window down, just hear them out for a minute and see if it's close enough. Right to the interstate. Yeah. Anyways.
00:53:25
Speaker
So, so the court's like, yeah, you can't you can't come at us and tell us that the the road is your, you know, is your church and therefore by saying you can't complicated. Yeah. um And so they're also saying like, yeah, when you put kids to work, ah especially in public spaces, that's potentially putting kids at risk.
00:53:44
Speaker
some harms might affect only them rather than adults. And while it's nice if there's a parent or guardian that can help reduce some risks, but it doesn't eliminate them. And they were like, Yeah, then doing this religious stuff that can sometimes create difficult and potentially harmful situations. It can be challenging even for adults, and maybe just inappropriate for kids. um And that can, you know, it can cause harms or psychological or physical injury. So the state would have like, you know, police power to address the harm.
00:54:14
Speaker
um Wow. wow and but they also What? mother math Mother Massachusetts. Oh yeah, basically. Oh yeah. And then the the court said, quote, parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but it does not follow they are free in identical circumstances to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion where they can make that choice from the for themselves. Just take your kids out of the martyrdom generally, please. Wait till they're 18. It's essentially especially the opposite of what you were getting at Adam, him where it was like, oh, the child is so fervently for this. The Supreme Court looked at that, at least this is my reading of it, and was like, the child is not old enough to make that decision. That's a little suspicious.
00:55:03
Speaker
I mean, I will say having a ah young child believe that the world is going to end unless they like handout pamphlets. I mean, I would argue that maybe that's not quite as voluntary. They might need therapy as an adult. ahead of the curve He's just in tune with the spirit of the world. he knows what's going on i mean What if they know something we don't, you know? yep Maybe we should read those bandwidths. We should get our hands on those.
00:55:31
Speaker
It was it was the watchtower and um something else. I don't remember what the ah other one is. It's stuff that I think is probably still around. Oh, nice. OK, classic. So so, yeah, they were like, yeah, mass, you know, they decided to prohibit child labor in public places for for the protection of the kids. And that's a legitimate objective. ah So the government can like, you know, kind of come out and protect kids in that way.
00:55:55
Speaker
and um you know And then they they actually did make a statement. They're like, we are only addressing the facts in this case. We're not laying a foundation for state intervention and child's participation in religion. There's like all sorts of ways that like children can be religious um that you know can be constitutionally protected. It's just that this specific case. So that was the that was the majority opinion um that you know of the 5-4.
00:56:25
Speaker
Yeah, and there were a couple of descents as well. Just real quick, some things that they stipulate is like you all were arguing like, was the child selling something? Majority opinion says that the Massachusetts court interpreted their law as the child was selling something, we defer.
00:56:47
Speaker
We're not going to argue that point. They already decided that the child was selling something. So now we're going to look at it and say, okay, in that context, what now? Well, they violated the law and this law doesn't, you know, doesn't stop the child from practicing religion. It just stops them from being, you know, pressed into service. So fine.
00:57:12
Speaker
h Not everybody on the court saw it that way. Hey, what the heck were the descent? Yeah, actually, yeah. What were the descents? Let's see. So Justice Murphy basically was like a child has the right to be, you know, religious, to practice religion on public streets. She was engaged in religious activity rather than commercial activity. So that was like his kind of sticking point. well I was thinking. um and And he was like, yeah, like the the religion, like the tenets of the religion include distributing these tracks, there's no expectation of profit. And he was like, she distributed the stuff at her own desire and and with SP's consent, motivated by love of and command by the Lord, basically.
00:58:01
Speaker
ah So he was like let the child be religious and what the state is doing is basically um indirectly restraining minors exercise of religion by basically punishing their parents for letting them do it. That was his stance. um And he was saying the state needed evidence of quote, a grave and immediate danger to the state or to the health, morals or welfare of the child. And he didn't think the state met that burden. And he also said that if a kid is involved in serious religion, then they're probably immune from negative influences on the street.
00:58:40
Speaker
Oh wow. You had me up but to that point. Oh that's such an of the time notion. That is a hot take. This child is shielded by Jesus. Yeah it's like if they're in the church then there's no way they're they're doing anything shady. This child won't accept a marijuana cigarette from a vagrant on the street.
00:59:05
Speaker
The children of the church have never done anything bad, ever. That too, that too. Yeah, they're immune from sin because they got in so early. and associate with sinners, don't worry. yep yep And he he also had this, um he did also mention that like the fact that they're Jehovah's Witnesses. So he was like, yeah, this group is very zealous and they're really unpopular. And they, this is a group that had been targeted and harassed um in part through quote, little use ordinances and statutes. And um I can get into that.
00:59:41
Speaker
a little later, but first I want to talk about the other dissent. This is from Justice Jackson. um He also had a problem with applying child labor laws to restrict religious activity. And he was like, just because it's unconventional, it doesn't mean that, you know, you can't, it doesn't get the same protections that the more orthodox religious activities.
01:00:03
Speaker
You know get and he was saying that you know the fact that religious literature is sold rather than donated doesn't mean that evangelism is a commercial enterprise. Otherwise the passing of the collection plate in church would make the church service a commercial project.
01:00:20
Speaker
well who Nevermind. I mean, he did say, this guy also said that like members of the faith should be free to do religious stuff, but then once their activities involve the public to sustain the worshipers or the leaders, so he said soliciting the public, public dinners and entertainment, bingo games, etc, then the state can regulate them as long as it's not discriminatory, it's not like arbitrary and capricious.
01:00:50
Speaker
um And then he was basically like, this decision totally lays the foundation for the state like interfering with children's religion, just so long as you the state says, oh, it's in the name of their health and wealth welfare. So he also had an issue with this decision.
01:01:04
Speaker
Right. Yeah, it it does. Yeah, that's the thing. It's just like statements. It doesn't have the business unless it's truly harming the child, which mentally, yeah, maybe. Come on, we're getting things a little little sketchy. um But I mean, come on. Anyway, but yeah I digress, I guess. Wow. I mean, yeah. Wow.
01:01:28
Speaker
It was a very, it was a, you know, it was a tough decision for the court. It was a 5-4 decision. And one source I found reported that Justice Rutledge, who had written the majority opinion, later on said that he had been tempted to flip a coin to decide his vote. Wow. wow Well, that's that's not where you were at for a second. but You shouldn't say that on the record.
01:01:54
Speaker
This is fake fun court. It's very unjurist prudent. Oh, frick. I forgot to put my powdered wig on before this. I think that they they say that pretty early in judge school. Thou shalt not rely on dice and coins to make decisions. Bold of you to assume that I went to judge school. Yeah, fair. Fair, fair, fair, fair. Yeah, the standards have changed. Judge school. yeah ah The judgery. Yeah, that's where I went. The Massachusetts judgery.
01:02:24
Speaker
in Brockton mess. And team speaking of the whole, you know, ah vaccination example. um Yeah, let's go there again. So it was written, it was like, yeah, so we have all these thoughts about, you know, the amendment and religion. And then they're like, yeah, for example, like vaccination, and then they just kind of moved on. So Little did they know. and So vaccination was like not an issue in this case, but because of that that mention, this case has been like cited in other court decisions and legislation regarding compulsory vaccination. Oh, weird. Everyone just kind of moved on because it was a public health issue and not something that should be subject to the whims of individual foibles and beliefs.
01:03:10
Speaker
Yeah, they were just like, well, as was stated in Prince V mass, like you, you know, religion isn't ah isn't an excuse and whatever, but and then just kind of kept it moving. But like, if you actually read the case, it's not even about it was just like, oh, yeah, also vaccination, but really about the street corners, and you know, mistakes were made here. We're totally going to get a vaccination case. Next episode. i Yeah. feel her The stage. We were so sure of ourselves. Oh, boy.
01:03:40
Speaker
right before the fall. And then one more like interesting fact. ah So Jehovah's Witnesses, given their very strict requirements and rejection of you know sort of cultural values and and ah modern cultural values and sort of their refusal to engage in such practices as serving in the military or reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, et cetera. So they do have a history of getting in trouble with the law.
01:04:07
Speaker
And they also have a history of getting involved with litigation, and including, you know, educating members about legal involvement, about their rights and about how to advocate for themselves. ah So this group has been involved in a lot of court cases, including appeals to SCOTUS with some wins. This was not one of them. um But that this group has basically helped ah clarify some First Amendment issues. So um you know and then this was happening around world war two the group was like really
01:04:43
Speaker
unpopular and subject to harassment. And as the one Justice ah pointed out, like that's when towns are like, Oh, there's this ordinance we have on the books, we're gonna and enforce it against you just to fuck with you kind of, um kind of thing. But ah there's like a whole history of Jehovah's Witnesses and like, legal involvement. um I'm focused on the US, but it it looks like also around the world. But in the US, they really kind of helped lay the groundwork for clarifying Religious rights in the areas of like medical treatment and child custody and what have you forcing your child to be a tiny creepy proselytizer Speaking doomsday to the people of Brockton, Massachusetts Justin Brockton mass. Yeah specifically in downtown Brockton, Massachusetts Armageddon Central If anywhere, it'll be the fairgrounds actually Anyway
01:05:41
Speaker
So yeah, that is a that's that's what happened. Wow. I think the the so what on this one was the the the Supreme Court, again, sort of saying like, not all of your rights are fully absolute. There are kaa there there are opportunities for the government in the interest of a wider society to place some restrictions on on your rights.
01:06:10
Speaker
ah They talk about it pretty clearly and and even in the majority opinion, you know, that the line is of that they're walking as a very fine one. um But that in this particular case, they looked at it and said, no, the right to free exercise of religion, the freedom of the press and the 14th Amendment not violated in this instance, because yes, the government does have a duty to protect children.
01:06:41
Speaker
And so as the law is written We don't think it rises right so You know not not dissimilar from you know the the Schenck case right where they said yeah, you have a freedom of of speech But it's not absolute there there there are limits that can be placed on it so this is sort of in that same vein of of providing some redress for the government to to put some guardrails around. and Maybe the guardrails isn't the right word. Hit some limits on ah you know how far these rights really do extend. Rights are such a feeble little thing, aren't they? So frail. So fleeting.
01:07:28
Speaker
So delicate. And then once again, they don't exist until like somebody sues the government and forces the courts to be like, oh, yeah, no, you have rights.
Reflections on Judicial Decision-Making
01:07:38
Speaker
They're like, oh, yeah, no, hey, actually, yeah, you're good. You have rights. We're all just diligently chipping away our rights in Uncle Sam's labyrinthine basement. Rough. Yeah. Yeah. Very rough. I feel like that's a good place to put a pin in it, honestly.
01:07:56
Speaker
if Yep. Cool. All right. Well, thank you much justices for your, for your wise deliberations. You're welcome. If you want to call it that, I appreciate it. I thought you guys were all going to go for Jarrett. No, never that.
01:08:13
Speaker
yeah perhaps There was, there was sort of a, uh, a nod between Nikki and I've just sort of like, you sure you want to argue that side? Cause that's the side.
01:08:25
Speaker
like that's that's this they're not going to do That's the side there you know they're going to go against. And then thinking, well, if I argue the other side, ah you probably will win. I really do wonder how the outcome would be different if these deliberations were delivered anonymously. Yeah.
01:08:47
Speaker
Yeah, just put a little like robot voice over your you're recording. which if you we can't tell Do it beforehand. Make us listen to it. We can't tell who it is. It's just seven minutes of silence while you all read our written statements. you know That's good radio. Yeah, that's great radio. ah um So yeah, i umm um I'm curious. Did you decide what you decided because you believe it or because I argued against it?
01:09:16
Speaker
Wouldn't you like to know? Por que no los dos? Yeah, honestly, I just have a soft spot for creepy kids, uh, proselytizing view.
01:09:28
Speaker
In Brockton, Massachusetts. Very specifically, anywhere else. Specifically to the people of Brockton, Massachusetts. All right. Well, thank you much justices. Thank you much, uh, Nikki, and thank you to, to our listeners. We will catch you in the next episode.
01:09:45
Speaker
Bye. We have lifetime appointments. See you later.
01:09:52
Speaker
We will be back. Bye, everyone.
01:09:58
Speaker
Well, there you have it. A unanimous, narrow decision from our justices in favor of Prince, the petitioner, on the grounds that the child wasn't selling anything, so the Massachusetts labor laws do not apply. This is in contrast to the real Supreme Court, which ruled five to four in favor of Massachusetts as the First Amendment protections for religious observance were not violated by the state's rules to protect the welfare of children.
01:10:22
Speaker
Thanks for listening. Please subscribe, rate, and comment so other people can find us. You can also catch us on YouTube and Instagram at ReLitigated Podcast. Please help us spread the word. Alright, until next time, I'm Jarrett, and this has been ReLitigated. Take care.