Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Chief Justice: Warren Earl Burger (1969-1986)
Issue/Topic
First Amendment, Parochiaid (religious based instruction)
II. Background and Facts of the Case
This was actually three separate cases: Lemon v. Kurtzman, Early v. DiCenso,
and Robinson v. DiCenso. These cases, from Pennsylvania and Rhode Island,
were combined in the Supreme Court because they each involved public
assistance to private schools, some of which were religious.
Rhode Island had a 1969 Salary Supplement Act that provided that a 15% salary
supplement be paid to teachers in the nonpublic schools that spend less on perpupil secular education than the average spent in public schools. In other words,
private school teachers have a 15% lower salary rate and in order to ensure
equality for teachers in private schools and public schools, the state pays that
15% extra to the salary of private school teachers. These eligible teachers must
agree to teach only courses that are offered in public schools, with the same
resources used in public schools, and they must not teach religion. A three-judge
court found that 25% of the State’s elementary students attended nonpublic
schools, 95% of whom attended Roman Catholic affiliated schools. This means
that about 250 teachers in these religious schools are the sole beneficiaries under
the Act.
Pennsylvania passed the Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act in
1968 which authorized the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to
“purchase” certain “secular educational services” from nonpublic schools. This
would directly reimburse these schools for teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and
instructional materials. The reimbursement is restricted to only specific secular
courses, in which textbooks and materials must be approved by the
Superintendent. Also, payments were not to be made for any course containing
“any subject matter expressing religious teaching, or the morals or forms of
worship of any sect.” The state made contracts with schools that had more than
20% of all students within the state. Obviously, the majority of these schools
were Roman Catholic affiliated. A three-judge court sided with the State and
dismissed the complaint on the grounds that there was no clear claim for relief.
III. The Issue for the Court
The court is trying to figure out if the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes
violated the First Amendment’s Establishment clause by making state financial
aide available to “church-related educational institutions.”
IV. Arguments
Lemon (plaintiff) argued that the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes were a
violation of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment and the Free
Exercise clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is because the parochial
school system was an essential component to the Catholic religion and that by
paying these schools; the states were blurring the lines between church and state.
Even if the money was not going directly to religious purposes, other money
would be.
Kurtzman’s argument was that the states were not funding religious practices
and that the government was only giving money to help education. Also, they
argued that in no way did they promote religious sanctity because of the
provisions in each statute.
Opinion: State funding for religious entities is specifically outlawed in the U.S.
Constitution therefore it is completely wrong for Pennsylvania and Rhode Island
to create laws so that they can fund these religious schools.
V. Decision
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lemon.
A unanimous decision 8-0.
VI. Reasoning
The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger. In this he
stated that both the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes were
unconstitutional according to the Religion clauses of the First Amendment. This
is because the “entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive
entanglement between government and religion.” Within his written opinion,
Chief Justice Burger created a three-part test for laws dealing with religious
establishment. The test declared that in order for a statute to be constitutional, (1)
it must have “a secular legislative purpose”, (2) it must “have principle effects
which neither advance nor inhibit religion”, and (3) it must not “foster an
excessive government entanglement with religion.”
VII. Personal Opinion
If I were the judge for this case, I would have sided with Lemon as well. I believe
that it is extremely important to support the Constitutional edict that
government and religion should be independent entities. The founding father’s
emphasized this idea of separation of church and state in the First Amendment’s
Establishment clause stating, “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion.” I find this is even more important when this
establishment of religion directly affects the impressionable young Americans in
elementary schools. The Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment also plays a
huge role in this case because the Establishment clause states that only the
federal government can not make such laws. The Due Process clause ensures that
state and local governments cooperate with the Establishment clause as well.
The Supreme Court was right to side with Lemon because all accusations made
by Lemon against Kurtzman were correctly and sufficiently supported by the
First and Fourteenth Amendments. Separation of church and state is an essential
idea established by the founding fathers’ of the United States. The Supreme
Court was also correct in coming up with a decision that also instituted a
standard test that could be useful in deciding the constitutionality of other
related court cases.
VIII. Historical Significance of the Case
This case developed the “Lemon Test,” which is a three-part test used to
determine if a statute violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.
There are still many cases where the government indirectly supports religion
which brings many questions about the constitutionality of these instances. The
battle is not exactly over.
Related Cases:
Abington Township School District v. Schempp
Everson v. Board of Education
McCollum v. Board of Education for District 71
Board of Education v. Allen
Aguilar v. Felton
Agostini v. Felton
IX. Citations
Cline, Austin. "Supreme Court Decisions- Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): Public
Funding of Religious Schools." About.com, Agnosticism / Atheism. 2011. Web. 01
May 2011.
<http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatedecisions/a/LemonKurtzman.
htm>.
"Lemon v. Kurtzman - Significance, Supreme Court Establishes The Lemon Test,
Further Readings." Jrank.org. Net Industries, 2011. Web. 1 May 2011.
<http://law.jrank.org/pages/12577/Lemon-v-Kurtzman.html>.
"Lemon v. Kurtzman." Enotes.com. ENotes.com, Inc., 2011. Web. 1 May 2011.
<http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/lemon-v-kurtzman>.
"Lemon v. Kurtzman." LII | Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. 2011.
Web. 01 May 2011.
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0602_ZS.
html>.
"Lemon v. Kurtzman." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Oyez,
In., 2011. Web. 01 May 2011. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/19701979/1970/1970_89>.