Lemon v kurtzman
Download
Report
Transcript Lemon v kurtzman
Lemon v. Kurtzman
1971
Facts
PA law provided
reimbursement to
private schools
Covered
Teacher salaries
Textbooks for nonreligious courses
Issue
Does the PA law violate the
establishment clause of the 1st
amendment and the equal protection
clause of the 14th amendment?
1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting
the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof…”
14th amendment: “No state shall make or enforce any
law which shall… deny any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.”
Alton Lemon-ACLU (appellant)
Church affiliated schools promote
a particular religion.
Programs for reimbursement are
“excessive entanglement” by
state.
Oversight of schools would be
difficult.
Listening to
Lemon oral arguments
1. What subjects are mentioned?
2. How does a non-public school qualify
for aid from the state?
3. What was the source of money used by
Pennsylvania to pay the schools?
4. What question caused the court to
laugh?
Kurtzman: appellee
15% salary supplement
Teacher’s teaching subjects offered in
public schools
25% of state’s students went to non-public
schools - 95% of these were Catholic
Schools serving more than 20% of area
students
No establishment of “state” religion
Outcome
Court held that state program
directly benefited parochial
schools.
State supervision would produce
excessive entanglement.
Created three-pronged test:
Significance – created 3-pronged test
1. Purpose of aid must be clearly
secular.
2. Primary effect of aid must neither
advance nor inhibit religion.
3. Aid must avoid “excessive
entanglement” of government with
religion.
Opinion
“The substantial religious
character of these
church-related schools
gives rise to entangling
church-state relationships
of the kind the Religion
Clauses sought to avoid.”
Chief Justice Warren Burger (1971)
Works Cited
The Oyez Project, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S.
602 (1971),
http://www.oyez.org/cases/19701979/1970/1970_89/
Government in America: People, Politics, and
Policy, Edwards, Lineberry et. al. Thirteenth
Edition. 2008
Supreme Court majority opinion by Chief
Justice Warren Burger
http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/602/case.html