Lemon v. KurtzmanLemon v. Kurtzman

19711971

FactsFacts

PA law provided PA law provided reimbursement to reimbursement to private schoolsprivate schools

Covered Covered Teacher salariesTeacher salaries Textbooks for non-Textbooks for non-

religious coursesreligious courses

IssueIssue Does the PA law violate the Does the PA law violate the

establishment clause of the 1establishment clause of the 1stst amendment and the equal protection amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14clause of the 14thth amendment? amendment?

11stst amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”exercise thereof…”

1414thth amendment: “No state shall make or enforce any amendment: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall… deny any person within its jurisdiction law which shall… deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”the equal protection of the laws.”

AltonAlton Lemon-Lemon-ACLU ACLU (appellant)(appellant)

Church affiliated schools promote Church affiliated schools promote a particular religion.a particular religion.

Programs for reimbursement are Programs for reimbursement are “excessive entanglement” by “excessive entanglement” by state.state.

Oversight of schools would be Oversight of schools would be difficult.difficult.

Listening to Listening to Lemon oral argumentsLemon oral arguments

1. What subjects are mentioned?1. What subjects are mentioned? 2. How does a non-public school qualify 2. How does a non-public school qualify

for aid from the state?for aid from the state? 3. What was the source of money used by 3. What was the source of money used by

Pennsylvania to pay the schools?Pennsylvania to pay the schools? 4. What question caused the court to 4. What question caused the court to

laugh? laugh?

Kurtzman: appelleeKurtzman: appellee 15% salary supplement 15% salary supplement Teacher’s teaching subjects offered in Teacher’s teaching subjects offered in

public schoolspublic schools 25% of state’s students went to non-public 25% of state’s students went to non-public

schools - 95% of these were Catholicschools - 95% of these were Catholic Schools serving more than 20% of area Schools serving more than 20% of area

studentsstudents No establishment of “state” religionNo establishment of “state” religion

OutcomeOutcome Court held that state program Court held that state program

directly benefited parochial directly benefited parochial schools.schools.

State supervision would produce State supervision would produce excessive entanglement.excessive entanglement.

Created three-pronged test:Created three-pronged test:

Significance – created 3-pronged testSignificance – created 3-pronged test

1. Purpose of aid must be clearly 1. Purpose of aid must be clearly secular.secular.

2. Primary effect of aid must neither 2. Primary effect of aid must neither advance nor inhibit religion.advance nor inhibit religion.

3. Aid must avoid “excessive 3. Aid must avoid “excessive entanglement” of government with entanglement” of government with religion.religion.

OpinionOpinion ““The substantial religious The substantial religious

character of these character of these church-related schools church-related schools gives rise to entangling gives rise to entangling church-state relationships church-state relationships of the kind the Religion of the kind the Religion Clauses sought to avoid.”Clauses sought to avoid.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger (1971)Chief Justice Warren Burger (1971)

Works CitedWorks Cited

The Oyez Project, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. The Oyez Project, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971),602 (1971),http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_89/1979/1970/1970_89/

Government in America: People, Politics, and Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy, Edwards, Lineberry et. al. Policy, Edwards, Lineberry et. al. ThirteenthThirteenth Edition. 2008Edition. 2008

Supreme Court majority opinion by Chief Justice Supreme Court majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren Burger Warren Burger http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/602/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/403/602/case.html