Question
- What is the core concept addressed in both Wisconsin v. Yoder, and Reynolds v. US?
- Why and how are the outcomes of the two cases so different?
Ask by Carlson Ramos. in the United States
Jan 27,2025
Upstudy AI Solution
Tutor-Verified Answer
Answer
Both Wisconsin v. Yoder and Reynolds v. United States deal with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which protects religious freedom.
-
Wisconsin v. Yoder allowed the Amish to keep their children out of high school because their religious beliefs didn’t harm public interests.
-
Reynolds v. United States ruled that practicing polygamy, even for religious reasons, was not allowed because it went against federal laws and public morals.
So, the main difference is that Yoder protected religious practices that didn’t conflict with the state’s laws, while Reynolds restricted religious practices that were illegal and against societal norms.
Solution

Sign in to Unlock Answers for Free!
A Learning Platform Trusted by Millions of Real Students and Teachers.

Answered by UpStudy AI and reviewed by a Professional Tutor
Like
The Deep Dive
Both cases delve into the tension between individual religious freedoms and societal laws. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court prioritized the free exercise of religion by allowing Amish students to refrain from attending school beyond eighth grade, emphasizing the importance of community and religious upbringing. Conversely, Reynolds v. US upheld laws against polygamy, indicating a limit to religious practices when they conflict with societal norms or legal statutes, showing that not all religious beliefs are exempt from legal scrutiny.
The different outcomes stem from varying contexts regarding societal impact. Yoder’s ruling highlighted the significance of faith and cultural preservation, recognizing the Amish’s way of life as critical to their religious beliefs. Reynolds, however, involved a practice (polygamy) that was seen as conflicting with broader societal values regarding marriage. Essentially, the courts balanced individual liberties with the need to maintain social order and community standards, resulting in distinct legal determinations.