home

Lemon v. Kurtzman // 403 U.S. 602 (1971) // **

**Summary of Facts** **Pennsylvania Case (//Lemon, et al. v. Kurtzman, et al.////)//** Plaintiffs (including citizens and organizations) challenged the **Pennsylvania Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act** and brought suit against defendants (including state superintendent, state treasurer, and sectarian schools). This Act, arising out of concern due to the rapidly rising costs in Pennsylvania's non-public schools, enabled the State Superintendent to allocate funds to non-public schools for teachers' salaries, textbooks and instructional materials in secular subjects. Most of the schools receiving aid were religious based. In order to be eligible for benefits, schools receiving aid were required to maintain records of the separate cost of secular education. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin defendants from approving and allocating funds under this Act on the grounds that it violated the religious clauses of the First Amendment (i.e. the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses dealing with separation of Church and State). The Court ruled in favor of Defendants, granting their Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief. The taxpayers appealed.

Similar to the above action, plaintiff citizen groups brought suit against defendant state officials who allocated state funds to non-public elementary schools under the **Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act**. This Statute was enacted because state legislatures felt that the quality of education in non-public schools was being threatened as salaries necessary to attract competent teachers was rising. It allowed for teacher's in private schools to receive a salary supplement up to fifteen percent of their current salary, but not to exceed the maximum salary paid to public school teachers. In order to qualify for supplements teachers were required to; 1) teach only those subjects offered in public schools, and 2) agree in writing to not teach courses in religion while receiving salary supplements. The sole beneficiaries under this act were teachers in Catholic schools. Furthermore, schools receiving supplements were required to submit financial data in order to examine how much money was attributed to secular education and how much to religious activity. Unlike the Pennsylvania Case however, the Rhode Island Federal District Court Judges ruled in favor of plaintiffs in this matter. The court ruled that the statute violated the First Amendment in that it fostered excessive entanglement between government and religion. An injunction was granted against defendants from making any such disbursements. The state officials appealed.
 * Rhode Island Case** (**//Dicenso,//** **//et al//****//. v. Robinson,//** //**et al.)**//

On appeal from their respective district courts, these two cases were consolidated and brought for review before the Supreme Court of the United States.
 * Supreme Court Case**

**Legal Issue** Were the religious clauses of the First Amendment violated by state statutes providing state aid to church related elementary and secondary schools and teachers therein, with regard to secular matters?

**Ruling** Yes. On June 28,1971, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously voted that direct government assistance to religious schools is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is in violation of the religious clauses of the First Amendment. Chief Justice Burger and the Court established the “Lemon Test” for deciding if a law is in violation of the Establishment Clause. The "Lemon Test" examines the following: 1) whether the statute has a secular, legislative purpose; 2) whether its primary objective was one that neither advanced nor inhibited religion; and 3) whether the statute fostered excessive entanglement between government and religion. In this matter, the Court accepted the secular purpose attached to both statutes by the legislature. However, this case failed the third prong of the Lemon Test dealing with excessive entanglement. The excessive entanglement arose out of the restrictions and surveillance required to ensure that supplements being given were being used for a strictly non-ideological purpose. Also the religious schools are under the control of church hierarchy as well as religious schools being holding the primary purpose of these schools was faith itself. Which once again is the exact type of situation the First Amendment was designed to prevent.

Chief Justice Burger //"Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances or inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster and excessive government Entanglement with religion."//

Amazingly the 1971 case help fuel the long standing use of the "Lemon test." However, since its creation, the "Lemon Test" has been criticized because of the discretionary power given to the States in determining where the test should be applied. This has resulted in an inconsistent application of the test throughout the Country, and although in recent years the Courts have tended to stray away from the "Lemon Test," it still remains good law.

** The Lemon Test **
 * //First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose//. To put this in plain text, this means that the statute must have no background connection to that of religion, or even a direct connection to religion. Basically stating that if there is even an effort to push religion intention upon a government, government facility, or public schools it will be immediately denied.


 * //Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion//. The second part you must read hard and take note of the word effect to actually realize there is a difference. This means that the statute being proposed or argued can neither effect religion positively or negatively. Such action would prove unconstitional


 * //Finally, the statute must not cause an excessive government entanglement with religion.// Now, assuming the statute doesn't effect or influence religious intentions on a certain aspect of a government this is the main final part of the test. This basically means that the government must not become responsible for these religious activities. To be perfectly frank any religious activities that end up being supervised by the government, curricula end up being regulated by the government. So once again a private 'religious' school would have no place with any of these laws. Especially this last one deeming that if the government has to supervise it, that they call on the curriculum.

**Implications**

The implications that are indeed caused from this seem to have a more broad effect on teachers in the private schools themselves. Due to the problems with funding they are required to work within the bounds of money that the parents directly pay, rather then the community. This could show some difference in amount of resources, tools, and ultimately make it hard for the teacher to teach what he has been hired to teach. On the otherside of the track, we see public schools. The problem with this side is while the teacher has the cabilities to apply community resources on the family effort of broadening a young childs mind, it does cause limits. It is harder to teach mythology, some very real history, and it can be rather difficult to teach subjects about the Holy Roman Empire better known as the Byzantine Empire. Which would no doubt confuse the child and bring up very difficult questions about a religion, to which the teacher would be forced to respond very carefully as to not influence ones own religion. Through this, there could be a problem erupting from the parents like in the article of Edwards v. Aguillard.

Articles [|God on Stage? Religious Themes in Public Educational Theater] []

Source Pages [] [] [] [|403 U.S. 602 (1971)] 310 F. Supp. 35 (1969) 316 F. Supp 112 (1970)