Lemon v. Kurtzman
1971
Facts
 PA law provided
reimbursement to
private schools
 Covered
 Teacher salaries
 Textbooks for nonreligious courses
Issue
 Does the PA law violate the
establishment clause of the 1st
amendment and the equal protection
clause of the 14th amendment?
 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting
the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof…”
 14th amendment: “No state shall make or enforce any
law which shall… deny any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.”
Alton Lemon-ACLU (appellant)
 Church affiliated schools promote
a particular religion.
 Programs for reimbursement are
“excessive entanglement” by
state.
 Oversight of schools would be
difficult.
Listening to
Lemon oral arguments
 1. What subjects are mentioned?
 2. How does a non-public school qualify
for aid from the state?
 3. What was the source of money used by
Pennsylvania to pay the schools?
 4. What question caused the court to
laugh?
Kurtzman: appellee
 15% salary supplement
 Teacher’s teaching subjects offered in
public schools
 25% of state’s students went to non-public
schools - 95% of these were Catholic
 Schools serving more than 20% of area
students
 No establishment of “state” religion
Outcome
 Court held that state program
directly benefited parochial
schools.
 State supervision would produce
excessive entanglement.
 Created three-pronged test:
Significance – created 3-pronged test
 1. Purpose of aid must be clearly
secular.
 2. Primary effect of aid must neither
advance nor inhibit religion.
 3. Aid must avoid “excessive
entanglement” of government with
religion.
Opinion
 “The substantial religious
character of these
church-related schools
gives rise to entangling
church-state relationships
of the kind the Religion
Clauses sought to avoid.”
 Chief Justice Warren Burger (1971)
Works Cited
 The Oyez Project, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S.
602 (1971),
http://www.oyez.org/cases/19701979/1970/1970_89/
 Government in America: People, Politics, and
Policy, Edwards, Lineberry et. al. Thirteenth
Edition. 2008
 Supreme Court majority opinion by Chief
Justice Warren Burger
http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/602/case.html