Farrington v. Tokushige
1927 United States Supreme Court case

Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284 (1927), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down the Territory of Hawaii's law, making it illegal for schools to teach foreign languages without a permit, as it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Violation of the due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was not considered as Hawaii was a territory of the United States at the time.
Decision
The Court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision:
"The foregoing statement is enough to show that the school Act and the measures adopted thereunder go far beyond mere regulation of privately supported schools where children obtain instruction deemed valuable by their parents and which is not obviously in conflict with any public interest. They give affirmative direction concerning the intimate and essential details of such schools, intrust their control to public officers, and deny both owners and patrons reasonable choice and discretion in respect of teachers, curriculum and text-books. Enforcement of the Act probably would destroy most, if not all, of them; and, certainly, it would deprive parents of fair opportunity to procure for their children instruction which they think important and we cannot say is harmful. The Japanese parent has the right to direct the education of his own child without unreasonable restrictions; the Constitution protects him as well as those who speak another tongue."
The Court stated that "owners, parents and children" are guaranteed rights by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment with reference to Meyer v. Nebraska, Bartels v. Iowa, and Pierce v. Society of Sisters.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Farrington v. Tokushige” is 1927 United States Supreme Court case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Farrington, Tokushige and United, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “1927 United States Supreme Court case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5436309. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1927.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Farrington v. Tokushige”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Farrington v. Tokushige primary sources, Farrington v. Tokushige archive and Farrington research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Farrington v. Tokushige”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Farrington v. Tokushige” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.