Appellant
Tilton, et al.
Appellee
Richardson, U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.
Appellant's Claim
Institutions receiving federal monies were sectarian, therefore under HigherEducation Facilities Act, they should not get monies.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Leo Pfeffer
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Daniel M. Friedman
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
28 June 1971
Decision
The Court ruled that money used for non-religious purposes did not violate the Establishment Clause. However, the Court did strike down the 20 year limitation.
Significance
The Court found that the constitutional rights of taxpayers were not violatedsimply by the government granting money to religious schools for secular facilities.
In 1971 a group of people from Connecticut protested in a court of law a statute called The Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. The Higher EducationFacilities Act of 1963 allowed the government to give money to church-relateduniversities for buildings as long as these buildings were only used for non-religious educational purposes. The group of people who protested the act believed that four Connecticut-based church-related universities that receivedgrant monies from the federal government were using the buildings for religious purposes. The universities said they did not violate the statute. When thecase arrived at the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices, in a landmark 5-4 decision, voted to uphold the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. However, they made one change in the act. They changed the portion of the act that allowed a 20-year limit on the religious use of the buildings erected with the grant monies.
Chief Justice Burger voiced the majority opinion in Tilton v. Richardson. According to the Constitutional Law Dictionary, Burger said that the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 had a "legitimate secular objective entirely appropriate for government action without having the effect of advancing religion."
The reason the Court decided that the 20-year limit was unconstitutional, Burger said, was that "it cannot be assumed that a substantial structure has novalue after that period and hence the unrestricted use of a valuable propertyis in effect a contribution of some value to a religious body."
The majority of justices in Tilton v. Richardson voiced the opinion that the act, when Congress passed it, was for providing opportunities for college educations. This, they said, had nothing to do with religion. The appellants, or people who protested the act in court, provided evidence they believed showed that the monies used did promote religious content. They believed that the act violated the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Chief Justice Burger and Justices Stewart, Harlan, Blackmun and White agreedthat the act did not violate the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. These men arrived at their decision using a several criteria. First, the justices believed that Congress intended the act to include all colleges no matter what their affiliation. Secondly, the justices said legislative history backed up their opinions. Although other cases focused on thetension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of theFirst Amendment, the justices noted, there existed no simple solution to such a problem.
The justices also concurred that religious teaching is not the main purpose of church-related colleges as it is in parochial secondary and elementary schools. Further, Justices Burger, Stewart, Harlan, Blackmun and White cited theBradfield v. Roberts case of 1899. This case, they argued, showed thatall financial aid to church-sponsored activities did not violate the religion clauses to the Constitution. Their conclusion was this: there was no evidence that the religion was involved in the use of the allotted monies to the universities.
However, the act did violate the religion clauses, Justices Burger, Stewart,Harlan, Blackmun and White noted, in regard to the limitation for religious use of the buildings for 20 years. They said this restriction opens the buildings to use for other purposes at the end of the 20 years; therefore, it violates the religion clauses.
According to the Constitutional Law Dictionary, the opinion of the dissenters was "that even if the specific buildings funded under the grant wereused only for secular (non-religious) purposes, religious institutions were aided by being able to use for religious purposes monies freed by the receiptof the federal grant." The dissenters believed that taxpayer's monies shouldnot be used at a parochial school, be it elementary, secondary or collegiate.These justices said that the provision of monies, under the act, to these Connecticut colleges and universities, was indeed a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Related Cases
Higher Education Act
The aim of the Higher Education Act is to define the purpose of programs usedin higher education institutions, such as colleges and universities. The actis federally funded and and requires reauthorization every few years. Between its founding in 1965 through 1997, it was reauthorized seven times. In addition to establishing a program's purpose, the act defines who is eligible toparticipate in the program. It also provides procedures for distributing funds, which are made available to eligible students and institutions at the start of the academic year. The act sets annual federal spending limitations foreach program.
Sources
Wolanin, Thomas R. "A Primer on the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act."Change, November/December 1997.
Tilton, et al.
Appellee
Richardson, U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.
Appellant's Claim
Institutions receiving federal monies were sectarian, therefore under HigherEducation Facilities Act, they should not get monies.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Leo Pfeffer
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Daniel M. Friedman
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
28 June 1971
Decision
The Court ruled that money used for non-religious purposes did not violate the Establishment Clause. However, the Court did strike down the 20 year limitation.
Significance
The Court found that the constitutional rights of taxpayers were not violatedsimply by the government granting money to religious schools for secular facilities.
In 1971 a group of people from Connecticut protested in a court of law a statute called The Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. The Higher EducationFacilities Act of 1963 allowed the government to give money to church-relateduniversities for buildings as long as these buildings were only used for non-religious educational purposes. The group of people who protested the act believed that four Connecticut-based church-related universities that receivedgrant monies from the federal government were using the buildings for religious purposes. The universities said they did not violate the statute. When thecase arrived at the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices, in a landmark 5-4 decision, voted to uphold the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. However, they made one change in the act. They changed the portion of the act that allowed a 20-year limit on the religious use of the buildings erected with the grant monies.
Chief Justice Burger voiced the majority opinion in Tilton v. Richardson. According to the Constitutional Law Dictionary, Burger said that the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 had a "legitimate secular objective entirely appropriate for government action without having the effect of advancing religion."
The reason the Court decided that the 20-year limit was unconstitutional, Burger said, was that "it cannot be assumed that a substantial structure has novalue after that period and hence the unrestricted use of a valuable propertyis in effect a contribution of some value to a religious body."
The majority of justices in Tilton v. Richardson voiced the opinion that the act, when Congress passed it, was for providing opportunities for college educations. This, they said, had nothing to do with religion. The appellants, or people who protested the act in court, provided evidence they believed showed that the monies used did promote religious content. They believed that the act violated the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Chief Justice Burger and Justices Stewart, Harlan, Blackmun and White agreedthat the act did not violate the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. These men arrived at their decision using a several criteria. First, the justices believed that Congress intended the act to include all colleges no matter what their affiliation. Secondly, the justices said legislative history backed up their opinions. Although other cases focused on thetension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of theFirst Amendment, the justices noted, there existed no simple solution to such a problem.
The Justices who voted to uphold the Act cited thisconstitutional passage to bolster their argument: "the security and welfare of the United States require that this and future generations of American youth be assured ample opportunity for the fullest development of their intellectual capacities, and that this opportunity will be jeopardized unless the Nation's colleges and universities are encouraged and assisted in their efforts to accommodate rapidly growing numbers of youth who aspire to a higher education."
The justices also concurred that religious teaching is not the main purpose of church-related colleges as it is in parochial secondary and elementary schools. Further, Justices Burger, Stewart, Harlan, Blackmun and White cited theBradfield v. Roberts case of 1899. This case, they argued, showed thatall financial aid to church-sponsored activities did not violate the religion clauses to the Constitution. Their conclusion was this: there was no evidence that the religion was involved in the use of the allotted monies to the universities.
However, the act did violate the religion clauses, Justices Burger, Stewart,Harlan, Blackmun and White noted, in regard to the limitation for religious use of the buildings for 20 years. They said this restriction opens the buildings to use for other purposes at the end of the 20 years; therefore, it violates the religion clauses.
According to the Constitutional Law Dictionary, the opinion of the dissenters was "that even if the specific buildings funded under the grant wereused only for secular (non-religious) purposes, religious institutions were aided by being able to use for religious purposes monies freed by the receiptof the federal grant." The dissenters believed that taxpayer's monies shouldnot be used at a parochial school, be it elementary, secondary or collegiate.These justices said that the provision of monies, under the act, to these Connecticut colleges and universities, was indeed a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Related Cases
- Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291 (1899).
- National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.,301 U.S. 1 (1937).
- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
- Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
- Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664 (1970).
Higher Education Act
The aim of the Higher Education Act is to define the purpose of programs usedin higher education institutions, such as colleges and universities. The actis federally funded and and requires reauthorization every few years. Between its founding in 1965 through 1997, it was reauthorized seven times. In addition to establishing a program's purpose, the act defines who is eligible toparticipate in the program. It also provides procedures for distributing funds, which are made available to eligible students and institutions at the start of the academic year. The act sets annual federal spending limitations foreach program.
Sources
Wolanin, Thomas R. "A Primer on the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act."Change, November/December 1997.
Further Readings
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- Chandler, Ralph C., Richard A. Enslen, and Peter G. Renstrom. The Constitutional Law Dictionary: The First Amendment, Volume 3, Santa Barbara:ABC-Clio, Inc., 1987.
User Comments Add a comment…