Grand Rapids School District v. Ball
Significance, Separating Public And Religious Education, Taking The Lemon Test, The End Of A Symbolic Union
Grand Rapids School District, Michigan
Six Grand Rapids, Michigan, taxpayers
That two local public-school programs, Shared Time and Community Education, violated the separation of church and state called for in the First Amendment by using public funds to support courses offered in religious schools.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Kenneth F. Ripple, Special Assistant Attorney General of Michigan
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
A. E. Dick Howard
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens
William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
1 July 1985
That the Grand Rapids programs did indeed violate the First Amendment.
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
- Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985).
- Agostini v. Felton, 117 S.Ct. 1997 (1997).
- "Establishment of Religion." Harvard Law Review, November 1985, p. 173.
- Fiske, Edward B. "Ruling Means Cities Must Work Out How to Get Help to Parochial Pupils." New York Times, 2 July 1985.
- Gora, Joel M. "The Delicate Matter of Religion." ABA Journal, December 1985, p. 84.
- Greenhouse, Linda. "High Court Bars Public Teachers in Church Schools." New York Times, 2 July 1985.
- Grusendorf v. City of Oklahoma City - Significance, Tenth Circuit Finds City's Policy Reasonable, Impact, Further Readings
- Goldman v. Weinberger - Significance, The Government's Interest In Defense, A Passionate Dissent, Impact
- Grand Rapids School District v. Ball - Significance
- Grand Rapids School District v. Ball - Separating Public And Religious Education
- Grand Rapids School District v. Ball - Taking The Lemon Test
- Grand Rapids School District v. Ball - The End Of A Symbolic Union
- Other Free Encyclopedias