Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
**Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Overview**
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutionality of an Ohio voucher program designed to provide low-income students with the opportunity to attend private schools of their choice, predominantly religiously affiliated institutions. The program was implemented as part of an initiative to enhance educational opportunities and improve academic achievement for students in failing public schools. Susan Tave Zelman, along with other taxpayers, challenged the program, arguing that it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which separates church and state.
Initially, lower courts ruled against the program based on the Lemon test, which assessed the potential for government entanglement with religion. However, the Supreme Court ultimately reversed these decisions, with a narrow 5-4 majority ruling that the program was neutral with respect to religion. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist articulated that the aid provided was directed to individuals rather than institutions, thus allowing for secular choices. The ruling sparked significant debate regarding the implications of using public funds for religious education, highlighting differing perspectives on the role of government in educational funding. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, subsequent public votes in several states generally rejected similar voucher initiatives, indicating ongoing controversy around the issue.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
Date: June 27, 2002
Citation: 536 U.S. 639
Issue(s): Public subsidies of religious schools
Significance: Continuing a permissive trend in the use of tax money for parochial schools, the Supreme Court approved an Ohio program of providing low-income families with tax-subsidized vouchers to pay for tuition at private schools.
As part of plan to increase educational opportunity, the legislature of Ohio enacted a statute with a Pilot Scholarship Program that provided vouchers for low-income students to attend private schools of their choice from kindergarten through the eighth grade, with the announced goal of improving academic achievement. During the 1990-2000 school year, 96 percent of the students participating in the program attended religiously affiliated schools, and 82 percent of the participating schools had religious affiliations. Susan Tave Zelman, Ohio’s superintendent of public instruction, joined with other Ohio taxpayers to initiate a lawsuit alleging that the program violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The challengers prevailed in both the District Court and the Court of Appeals.
The lower courts based their decision on the three-pronged test in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which required a secular purpose, a secular primary impact, and no “excessive entanglement” between government and religion. For some time, however, the Supreme Court had been applying the Lemon test permissively, with less and less insistence on a “high wall” of separation between church and state. In Mueller v. Allen (1983), the Court had upheld a Minnesota law permitting a tax deduction for tuition costs at private parochial or secular schools, even though 95 percent of the deductions were for attendance at parochial schools. More recently, in Mitchell v. Helms (2000), the justices by a 5-4 margin had upheld a federal program of providing religious schools with computers and other equipment, despite the likelihood that some equipment might be occasionally used for religious instruction.
In the Zelman case, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and upheld the constitutionality of the Ohio voucher program. Speaking for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist reasoned the program was “entirely neutral with respect to religion.” Developing a “private choice test,” he argued that the Court’s precedents had consistently recognized a distinction between government aid going directly to the schools and assistant going to private individuals who are given adequate secular options. He emphasized that the government had done nothing to encouraged the students to attend parochial rather than nonreligious schools. In a strong dissent, Justice David H. Souter countered that the program involved the use of tax funds to subsidize religious indoctrination.
Although the Zelman decision created great controversy, it was unlikely that vouchers would be offered in many other places. Between 1970 and 2000, eight states held elections to decide the issue, and each time the voters rejected the proposal, usually by a vote of more than 65 percent.