Lemon v. Kurtzman Case Summary

The case arose from Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes that allowed state funds to reimburse private religious schools for certain educational expenses. The Supreme Court found these statutes unconstitutional, citing excessive government entanglement with religion.

Background of the Case

Alton Lemon and other civil rights activists initiated this case by filing suit against David H. Kurtzman, the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes that allowed the use of state funds for the reimbursement of non-public schools.

Private and parochial schools could be reimbursed for certain educational expenses, including:

• Teacher salaries
• Salary supplements
• Textbooks
• Other instructional materials for secular subjects

This applied to both elementary and secondary schools. Many of these private schools were religious institutions, such as Catholic schools.

The plaintiffs believed these laws violated the First Amendment.

First Amendment Religious Freedoms

Freedom of religion under the U.S. Constitution covers two distinct ideas:

• The free exercise clause prevents the government from burdening a person's ability to practice their religious beliefs.
• The establishment clause bars the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”

The plaintiffs in Lemon argued that financial support from the state for religious schools was a government endorsement of religion that violated the establishment clause. They believed that this could lead to excessive government entanglement with religion and undermine the secular nature of public education.

Legal Arguments

The Supreme Court took up the issue in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).

The plaintiffs argued that:

• The statutes at issue breached the constitutional separation of church and state.
• Providing public funds to religious schools endorses and supports religious activities, which is prohibited by the First Amendment's establishment clause.
• The financial aid created excessive entanglement between government and religion, and such support could lead to government favoritism of particular religious institutions. This, they believed, would undermine religious neutrality.

The defense argued that:

• The statutes enhanced educational quality and didn't promote religious practice.
• The funds were for secular purposes, such as teachers' salaries and textbooks for non-religious subjects. This promoted comprehensive education for all students, regardless of the type of school they attended.

The defense supported its argument by focusing on the secular intent behind the laws. It highlighted the educational benefits to students in both religious and non-religious schools. They argued the benefit to religious schools was not the intent of the statute. It was secondary to the goal of improving education generally.

The Court's Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court found the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that these laws led to excessive government entanglement with religion. Which, in turn, violated the First Amendment.

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the unanimous ruling, articulating the Court's concerns about the potential for government actions to blur the lines between church and state.

The Lemon Framework

The majority opinion established a framework for assessing the constitutionality of government involvement in religious activities. Today, it's known as the "Lemon test."

The Lemon test consists of three prongs. To be considered constitutional, a statute must:

• Have a secular legislative purpose
• Neither advance nor inhibit religion
• Not foster excessive government entanglement with religion

This framework helps maintain the constitutional separation of church and state.

Concurrences

Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote a concurring opinion. He highlighted the importance of maintaining separation between government and religious institutions.

Justice Brennan conceded that the statutes were meant to enhance educational opportunities generally. The issue, he explained, was that they created an undue connection between the state and religious organizations. This, he reasoned, was unconstitutional.

Justice William O. Douglas also wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Hugo Black and in part by Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Douglas agreed with the majority that the statutes in question violated the establishment clause. He wrote separately to emphasize his concerns about government funding of religious schools. His concern was the potential for entanglement between government and religion.

The Significance of Lemon v. Kurtzman

This case shows how difficult it is to both protect religious freedom and maintain neutrality.

The Lemon test has been used to address a range of issues, including:

• School prayer
• Religious displays on public property
• State funding for religious schools

Beyond its legal implications, Lemon v. Kurtzman has influenced public policy and educational practices. It's prompted lawmakers and educators to carefully examine their constitutional boundaries.

Related Cases

A few cases contributed to the legal framework that was further developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman, particularly regarding the criteria used to evaluate potential violations of the establishment clause. Collectively, they show the challenges of achieving government neutrality regarding religion.

Everson v. Board of Education

Everson v. Board of Education (1947) involved a New Jersey law that reimbursed parents for transportation costs to public and private schools, including religious private schools.

The Supreme Court upheld the law, emphasizing the importance of neutrality in government actions concerning religion. Everson set the stage for later establishment clause jurisprudence, including the principles later refined in Lemon v. Kurtzman.

Board of Education v. Allen

Board of Education v. Allen (1968) addressed the constitutionality of a New York law that required public school districts to lend textbooks to students in private schools. This included religious schools.

The Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling that the benefit was to the students, not the schools, and thus did not violate the establishment clause.

Tilton v. Richardson

Tilton v. Richardson (1971) examined federal grants provided to religious colleges for constructing buildings used for secular educational purposes.

The Supreme Court upheld the grants, ruling that they did not violate the establishment clause. The Court reasoned that the buildings were used for non-religious purposes and the grants had a clear secular intent.

This case was decided the same year as Lemon v. Kurtzman. It helped clarify the boundaries of permissible state aid to religious institutions.

Lee v. Weisman

Lee v. Weisman (1992) addressed the constitutionality of clergy-led prayer at public school graduation ceremonies.

The Supreme Court ruled that the prayer violated the establishment clause because it coerced students to participate in a religious exercise.

The Supreme Court did not explicitly apply the Lemon test in Lee. But it did reinforce the principles of the establishment clause by emphasizing the importance of preventing government practices that could be seen as endorsing religion, thus maintaining the separation of church and state.