Lemon v.Kurtzman
US Supreme Court, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

The states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island had actions brought against them by citizens and taxpayers of the states. The appellees clamed the states statutes for supplementing secular nonpublic schools violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both states had adopted statutory programs that would provide financial support to nonpublic elementary and secondary school.

Pennsylvania’s statute would reimburse schools for moneys spent on books, teacher salaries, and instructional materials. These funds could only be used for classes, teachers and materials that were “presented in the curricula of the public schools.” It was limited “solely” to courses in the following “secular” subjects: mathematics, modern foreign languages, physical science, and physical education. The schools seeking aid had to keep separate financial books on moneys spent. This act went into effect on July, 1968

Under the Rhode Island statute, the state would pay directly to the teachers in nonpublic schools a supplement not more than 15% of their salary and no more than that of a public school teacher’s yearly pay. To be eligible for the supplement the teacher must teach in a nonpublic school that has a less than average per-pupil expenditure of the public school. The teacher must only teach the subjects that were taught in the public school, nothing religious. This act was enacted in 1969.

The court in this case developed a three-step test for laws dealing with religion, The Lemon Test. In this three-step process the courts look at the states statutes: 1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) its principle or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion. The Supreme Court found that the states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes passed the first two questions but not the third. They determined that to aid the nonpublic religious school furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the surveillance necessary to enforce the laws of the statues would cause entanglement of the states and the religious affiliations. With this the court found that the statues did in-fact violate the First Amendment.

I believe the Supreme Court did file correctly in this case. They also set precedence to use in later court cases that had religious relations. I understand and applaud the states for their actions. They believed they took all precautions to help aid in education of students both at public and private schools. However, these were still private-religious schools, and their foundations are instilled throughout the buildings and grounds on which they set. For the state to say they would have no dealings with the religious portion of the schools is very juvenile thinking on their part.

I believe this case falls under Domain 1 which is to respond to pertinent political, social, and economic issues in the internal and external environment. These case forces me to think about the statutes and laws we produce whether be at a state level or at a campus level. Even though the law is to protect or support for positive outcome, there may be others they are offended by the act.

jagem