Lemon v. Kurtzman
Lemon v. Kurtzman is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1971 that addressed the complex relationship between government and religion in the context of educational funding. The case arose when Alton Lemon challenged a Pennsylvania statute that provided direct salary supplements to teachers of secular subjects in private religious schools, arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the law was unconstitutional, leading to the establishment of the "Lemon test," a three-part standard for evaluating potential violations of church-state separation.
The Lemon test requires that a statute has a secular legislative purpose, its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and it avoids excessive government entanglement with religion. The Court expressed concern that government funding could lead to intrusive oversight and a blurring of lines between religious and secular education. Over the years, the Lemon test has faced criticism and varying interpretations among justices, but it remains a significant framework for assessing similar cases involving religious institutions and government action. As societal views on church-state separation continue to evolve, the implications of this case resonate in ongoing debates about educational funding and religious freedom.
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Date: June 28, 1971
Citation: 403 U.S. 602
Issue:Separation of church and state
Significance: While vetoing state subsidies for teachers of parochial schools, the Supreme Court established a three-part Lemon test for evaluating whether governmental programs ran afoul of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
In 1968 the Pennsylvania legislature enacted a statute allowing direct salary supplements for teachers of secular subjects in private schools. Alton Lemon, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, brought suit against David Kurtzman, state superintendent of schools. The Supreme Court consolidated this case with a similar one from Rhode Island, and it ruled, by a 7-0 vote, that both state laws were unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger’s opinion for the majority was of later importance because of its three-part test known as the "Lemon test": First, a statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its primary effect must not be to either advance or inhibit religion; and third, it must not promote “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” Burger noted that the teachers at parochial schools, many of whom were nuns, would find it impossible to make a clear distinction between religious and nonreligious instruction. Government grants, moreover, would require surveillance and controls, which would involve a great deal of entanglement between state and religion.
The Lemon test, in its application, is susceptible to a great deal of interpretation, depending on whether the particular justice desires “accommodation” or a “high wall of separation” between church and state. Applying the test often split the justices into 5-4 votes. Although often criticized, the Lemon test has endured because a majority of the justices have been unable to coalesce behind an alternative standard. In Agostini v. Felton (1997), Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cited the Lemon test as good law, but she endorsed an accommodationist view of the first part of the test.
Bibliography
Boston, Rob. "High-Stakes Test." Humanist 73.4 (2013): 32–33. PDF file.
Janssen, William M. "Toiling in the Lemon Groves: Prelude to the Endorsement Test." Charleston Law Review 7.4 (2013): 691–718. PDF file.
"Lemon v. Kurtzman." LII. Cornell U Law School, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2016.
Russo, Charles J. "Lemon v. Kurtzman and Earley v. DiCenso." The Praeger Handbook of Religion and Education in the United States . 2 vols. Ed. James C. Carper and Thomas C. Hunt. Westport: Greenwood, 2011. Print.
Walsh, Mark. "Plaintiff in Landmark Lemon Case." Education Week 5 June 2013: 5. PDF file.