Meyer v Nebraska (1923) held that a state law prohibiting the teaching of a foreign language was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment because:

Meyer v Nebraska (1923) held that a state law prohibiting the teaching of a foreign language was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment because:

• A. proficiency in another language was not injurious to health or morals of child.
• B. the state may require exclusive use of English in classrooms.
• C. foreign language instruction is prohibited in public schools.
• D. students may only learn English at home.

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is that the state cannot interfere with how parents educate their children when there’s no real harm to the child. Meyer v. Nebraska struck down the law banning foreign-language instruction because it infringed on a family’s liberty to guide a child’s education under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Proficiency in another language is not injurious to a child’s health or morals, so the law’s justification collapses under the test of whether a regulation is narrowly tailored to protect health, morals, or welfare. In short, the ruling rests on protecting parental rights and educational opportunity, not on promoting English-only instruction. The other options don’t capture this reasoning: the decision wasn’t about enforcing English-only policy as such, nor did it hold that foreign-language instruction is outright prohibited or that learning English must occur only at home.

The key idea here is that the state cannot interfere with how parents educate their children when there’s no real harm to the child. Meyer v. Nebraska struck down the law banning foreign-language instruction because it infringed on a family’s liberty to guide a child’s education under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Proficiency in another language is not injurious to a child’s health or morals, so the law’s justification collapses under the test of whether a regulation is narrowly tailored to protect health, morals, or welfare. In short, the ruling rests on protecting parental rights and educational opportunity, not on promoting English-only instruction. The other options don’t capture this reasoning: the decision wasn’t about enforcing English-only policy as such, nor did it hold that foreign-language instruction is outright prohibited or that learning English must occur only at home.