Appellant
Alton J. Lemon
Appellee
David H. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Appellant's Claim
That state payment of teachers of secular subjects in parochial schools violates the First Amendment mandate of separation of church and state.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Henry W. Sawyer III
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
J. Shane Creamer
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None (Thurgood Marshall did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
28 June 1971
Decision
The Supreme Court struck down the state laws enabling such payments.
Significance
Lemon v. Kurtzman is important for establishing the "Lemon Test," a three-pronged test for determining whether a statute passes scrutiny under theFirst Amendment's prohibition of laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
Two separate state laws were at issue in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The firstof these was the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act of 1969; the second was the Pennsylvania Non-Public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968. Both laws permitted state government to supplement the salaries of teachers ofsecular subjects in religious schools. Alton J. Lemon was one of the residents and taxpayers who challenged these laws in federal court, claiming they violated the First Amendment's prohibition against state establishment of religion. After his suit was dismissed by the federal district court, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of this decision.
The first modern Supreme Court case concerning the First Amendment's Establishment of Religion Clause was Everson v. Board of Education (1947), inwhich the Court ruled that not only is government not allowed to favor one religion over another, it also cannot favor religion over secularism. Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) added the requirement that laws touching on freedom of religion must have a secular legislative function. And in1968, in Board of Education v. Allen, the Court also concluded that the primary effect of such laws must neither advance nor restrict religion.
Supreme Court Establishes the Lemon Test
Before ruling on the constitutionality of the statutes before it, the Court set up a three-pronged test, which Chief Justice Warren, writing for the Court, called "cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years." In order to pass the test, a law was obliged to meet the requirements of the FirstAmendment: 1) the law must have a secular (i.e., not religious) legislative purpose; 2) the law in its principle or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and 3) the law must not foster excessive entanglement ofchurch and state.
Both statutes failed the third requirement of no excessive entanglement. Burger's opinion admitted that the wall Thomas Jefferson said must be erected between church and state "far from being a `wall,' is a blurred, indistinct, andvariable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship." To guarantee that church and state remained separated under such laws,government would have to involve itself in constant monitoring of religiousschools, an involvement amounting to excessive entanglement. In the end, wrote Burger:
Although the Court has not yet abandoned the Lemon test, it has found ways ofmodifying it significantly. Justice O'Connor, for example, has convinced most of her fellow justices to shift the emphasis of the second prong of the test to a consideration of whether or not the law conveys a message of government endorsement or disapproval of religion.
State governments, realizing that the Court itself often found the results ofLemon unsatisfactory, were quick to find ways around it. For instance, the Court has taken a lenient attitude towards state aid that goes directlyto parochial school students and their parents, allowing the state to provide such things as free transportation and educational testing and counseling services--assistance also afforded public school students. For the same reason, state tax deductions for educational expenses--regardless of whether they were incurred in public or religious institutions--have been allowed to stand.And in Agostini v. Felton (1997), the Court overturned a precedent set a decade earlier ruling out a New York City program that sent public schoolteachers to parochial schools to provide remedial education to disadvantagedstudents. In the intervening years, the Court said, the state had institutedsafeguards to prevent excessive entanglement.
Related Cases
Alton J. Lemon
Appellee
David H. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Appellant's Claim
That state payment of teachers of secular subjects in parochial schools violates the First Amendment mandate of separation of church and state.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Henry W. Sawyer III
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
J. Shane Creamer
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None (Thurgood Marshall did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
28 June 1971
Decision
The Supreme Court struck down the state laws enabling such payments.
Significance
Lemon v. Kurtzman is important for establishing the "Lemon Test," a three-pronged test for determining whether a statute passes scrutiny under theFirst Amendment's prohibition of laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
Two separate state laws were at issue in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The firstof these was the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act of 1969; the second was the Pennsylvania Non-Public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968. Both laws permitted state government to supplement the salaries of teachers ofsecular subjects in religious schools. Alton J. Lemon was one of the residents and taxpayers who challenged these laws in federal court, claiming they violated the First Amendment's prohibition against state establishment of religion. After his suit was dismissed by the federal district court, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of this decision.
The first modern Supreme Court case concerning the First Amendment's Establishment of Religion Clause was Everson v. Board of Education (1947), inwhich the Court ruled that not only is government not allowed to favor one religion over another, it also cannot favor religion over secularism. Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) added the requirement that laws touching on freedom of religion must have a secular legislative function. And in1968, in Board of Education v. Allen, the Court also concluded that the primary effect of such laws must neither advance nor restrict religion.
Supreme Court Establishes the Lemon Test
Before ruling on the constitutionality of the statutes before it, the Court set up a three-pronged test, which Chief Justice Warren, writing for the Court, called "cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years." In order to pass the test, a law was obliged to meet the requirements of the FirstAmendment: 1) the law must have a secular (i.e., not religious) legislative purpose; 2) the law in its principle or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and 3) the law must not foster excessive entanglement ofchurch and state.
Both statutes failed the third requirement of no excessive entanglement. Burger's opinion admitted that the wall Thomas Jefferson said must be erected between church and state "far from being a `wall,' is a blurred, indistinct, andvariable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship." To guarantee that church and state remained separated under such laws,government would have to involve itself in constant monitoring of religiousschools, an involvement amounting to excessive entanglement. In the end, wrote Burger:
The merit and benefits of these schools . . . are not the issue before us . . . The sole question is whether state aid to these schools can be squared with the dictates of the Religion Clauses. Under our systemthe choice has been made that government is to be entirely excluded from thearea of religious instruction and churches excluded from the affairs of government. The Constitution decrees that religion must be a private matter . . .and that while some involvement and entanglement are inevitable, lines mustbe drawn.
Although the Court has not yet abandoned the Lemon test, it has found ways ofmodifying it significantly. Justice O'Connor, for example, has convinced most of her fellow justices to shift the emphasis of the second prong of the test to a consideration of whether or not the law conveys a message of government endorsement or disapproval of religion.
State governments, realizing that the Court itself often found the results ofLemon unsatisfactory, were quick to find ways around it. For instance, the Court has taken a lenient attitude towards state aid that goes directlyto parochial school students and their parents, allowing the state to provide such things as free transportation and educational testing and counseling services--assistance also afforded public school students. For the same reason, state tax deductions for educational expenses--regardless of whether they were incurred in public or religious institutions--have been allowed to stand.And in Agostini v. Felton (1997), the Court overturned a precedent set a decade earlier ruling out a New York City program that sent public schoolteachers to parochial schools to provide remedial education to disadvantagedstudents. In the intervening years, the Court said, the state had institutedsafeguards to prevent excessive entanglement.
Related Cases
- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
- McCollum v. Board of Education for District 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
- Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
- Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968).
- Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985).
- Agostini v. Felton, 117 S. Ct. 1997 (1997).
User Comments Add a comment…