Lemon v. Kurtzman
Lemon v. Kurtzman was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–1 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman) from 1968 was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools (mostly Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private schools, from public textbooks and with public instructional materials. The decision also upheld a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which had struck down the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act providing state funds to supplement salaries at private elementary schools by 15%. As in Pennsylvania, most of these funds were spent on Catholic schools.
|Lemon v. Kurtzman|
|Argued March 3, 1971|
Decided June 28, 1971
|Full case name||Alton J. Lemon, et al. v. David H. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, et al.; John R. Earley, et al. v. John DiCenso, et al.; William P. Robinson, Jr. v. John DiCenso, et al.|
|Citations||403 U.S. 602 (more)|
|Prior history||Lemon v. Kurtzman, 310 F. Supp. 35 (E.D. Pa. 1969); DiCenso v. Robinson, 316 F. Supp. 112 (D.R.I. 1970)|
|Subsequent history||On remand to 348 F. Supp. 300 (E.D. Pa. 1972), aff'd, 411 U.S. 192 (1973)|
|For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must (1) have a legitimate secular purpose, (2) not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3) not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.|
|Majority||Burger, joined by Black, Douglas, Harlan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun|
|Concurrence||Douglas, joined by Black, Brennan, Marshall (who filed a separate statement)|
|U.S. Const. amend. I; R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. 16-51-1 et seq. (Supp. 1970); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, §§ 5601-5609 (Supp. 1971)|
- The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
- The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
- The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)
- Character and purpose of institution benefited.
- Nature of aid the state provides.
- Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
The act stipulated that "eligible teachers must teach only courses offered in the public schools, using only materials used in the public schools, and must agree not to teach courses in religion." Still, a three-judge panel found 25% of the State's elementary students attended private schools, about 95% of those attended Roman Catholic schools, and the sole beneficiaries under the act were 250 teachers at Roman Catholic schools.
The court found that the parochial school system was "an integral part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church," and held that the Act fostered "excessive entanglement" between government and religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause.
Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Conservative Justices, such as Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, have scrutinized the application of the Lemon test. The test was compared to a "ghoul in a late night horror movie" by Justice Scalia in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993).
The Supreme Court itself has applied the Lemon test as recently as 2000 in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, while in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005) the court did not overturn the Lemon test, even though it was urged to do so by the petitioner.
The test was also central to Kitzmiller v. Dover, a 2005 intelligent design case before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the test in its 2017 decision upholding a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's executive order banning immigration from certain majority-Muslim countries.
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
- "Lemon v. Kurtzman". Oyez. Retrieved November 1, 2017.
- DiCenso v. Robinson, 316 F. Supp. 112 (D.R.I. 1970).
- Liptak, Adam (2013-05-26). "Alton T. Lemon, civil rights activist, dies at 84". New York Times. Retrieved 2014-08-15.
- Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384, 398 (1993) (Scalia, dissenting).
- Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
- McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, 545 U.S. 844 (2005).
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).
- Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017).
- Alley, Robert S. (1999). The Constitution & Religion: Leading Supreme Court Cases on Church and State. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. pp. 82–96. ISBN 1-57392-703-1.
- Kritzer, Herbert M.; Richards, Mark J. (2003). "Jurisprudential Regimes and Supreme Court Decisionmaking: The Lemon Regime and Establishment Clause Cases". Law & Society Review. 37 (4): 827–840. doi:10.1046/j.0023-9216.2003.03704005.x.