Facts of the Case

Lemon v. Kurtzman involved challenges to state laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island that provided financial aid to religious schools. In Pennsylvania, the law allowed the state to reimburse religious schools for expenses related to teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials in subjects that were also taught in public schools. In Rhode Island, the law provided a 15% salary supplement to teachers in private schools, including religious schools. Alton Lemon, a Pennsylvania resident, filed a lawsuit arguing that these laws violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by providing state financial support to religious institutions.

Constitutional Question

Do statutes that provide state funding for non-secular (religious) schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Arguments

For Lemon (the plaintiffs):

• The state laws violate the Establishment Clause by providing direct financial support to religious schools, effectively endorsing religion.
• The government should not be involved in funding or supporting religious institutions, as this creates an entanglement between church and state that is prohibited by the Constitution.
• The laws create a situation where taxpayer money is being used to support religious education, infringing on the rights of citizens who may not share those religious beliefs.

For Kurtzman (the defendants):

• The financial aid provided by the state is intended to support education in secular subjects, not to promote religious doctrine.
• The laws have a secular purpose, which is to improve the quality of education in private schools, including those that are religious.
• The financial aid does not lead to excessive government entanglement with religion because it is restricted to secular aspects of education and is administered in a way that avoids promoting religious activities.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, in an 8-0 decision, ruled in favor of Lemon and established the “Lemon test” for determining whether a law violates the Establishment Clause. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, writing for the Court, laid out a three-pronged test:

1. Secular Purpose: The statute must have a secular legislative purpose.
2. Primary Effect: The principal or primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
3. Excessive Entanglement: The statute must not result in an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Applying this test, the Court found that the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes failed the “excessive entanglement” prong because they required ongoing government oversight of religious schools’ operations to ensure that state funds were not used for religious purposes. This level of involvement, the Court concluded, created an unconstitutional entanglement between government and religion.

Significance

Lemon v. Kurtzman is a landmark case that established the “Lemon test,” which became a standard for evaluating the constitutionality of government actions under the Establishment Clause. The test has been applied in numerous subsequent cases involving the separation of church and state, particularly in situations where government funds or support are provided to religious institutions. While the “Lemon test” has been influential, it has also faced criticism and has not always been consistently applied by the Court in later cases. The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman remains a foundational precedent in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, shaping the legal landscape of church-state relations in the United States.