End date 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)91 S. Ct. 2105; 29 L. Ed. 2d 745; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 19 Prior history 310 F. Supp. 35 (E.D. Pa. 1969); 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) Majority Burger, joined by Black, Douglas, Harlan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun Concurrence Douglas, joined by Black, Brennan, Marshall (who filed a separate statement) Similar Engel v Vitale, Gitlow v New York, Everson v Board of Education, Schenck v United States, Lee v Weisman | ||
Lemon v kurtzman
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), 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 First Circuit, 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.
Contents
Lemon test
The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon), which details legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:
- 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)Factors.
- Character and purpose of institution benefited.
- Nature of aid the state provides.
- Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
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.
Recent use
Conservative Justices, such as Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, have scrutinized the application of the Lemon test. 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 the court did not overturn the Lemon test, even though it was urged to do so by the petitioner.
The Lemon 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 test was also central to Kitzmiller v. Dover, a 2005 intelligent design case in Pennsylvania.