4.8 • +11k Ratings
Find Study Materials for
- betray雷竞技
-
Exams Exam preparation made easy. -
Textbooks Free and expert-verified textbook solutions. - app雷竞技
雷电竞官方地址
School isn't just about academics: kids learn about social norms and traditions through their interactions with each other and with teachers. Students' parents often want to have a say in what they're learning, too - especially when it comes to religion. But who's responsible for making sure that the Constitutional separation between church and state extends to the school system?
In 1968 and 1969, some parents felt that laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island crossed that line. They didn't want their taxes going to paying for religious education, so they brought their argument to theSupreme Courtin a case called Lemon v. Kurtzman.
Lemon v. Kurtzman is a landmarkSupreme Courtcase that set a precedent for future cases regarding the relationship between government and religion, particularly in the area of government funding for religious schools. Below, we'll talk more about this and theLemon test!
Before we get into the facts of the case, it's important to understand two aspects of religion and government, both of which are found in theFirst Amendmentto the Constitution. The First Amendment says this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging thefreedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
TheEstablishment Clauserefers to the phrase in theFirst Amendmentthat says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Establishment Clause clarifies that the federal government does not have the authority to establish an official state religion.
Religion and politics have been in tension for centuries. Leading up to the American Revolution and the creation of the Constitution, many European countries had state religions. The combination of church and state often led to people outside of the main religion being persecuted and religious leaders using their cultural influence to interfere with policy and governance.
TheEstablishment Clausehas been interpreted to mean that government:
Figure 1: This protest sign advocates for the separation between church and state. Source: Edward Kimmel, Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-2.0
TheFree Exercise Clauseimmediately follows the Establishment Clause. The full clause reads: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion]." This clause is a little different from the Establishment Clause because it doesn't focus on restricting government power. Rather, it focuses on explicitly protecting individuals' right to practice whatever religion they want.
Both of these clauses together represent the idea ofFreedom of Religionand the separation of church and state. However, they have often run into conflicts, leading to the Supreme Court having to step in and make decisions.
Lemon v. Kurtzman all started with the passage of two acts that were intended to help out some struggling church-affiliated schools.
The Pennsylvania Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1968) allowed some state funds to go to reimbursing religious-affiliated schools for things like teachers' salaries, classroom materials, and textbooks. The Act stipulated that the funds could be used only for secular classes.
Figure 2: State government is responsible for administering and funding public education. Pictured above is Pennsylvania Governor Wolf celebrating a school funding initiative in 2021. Source: Governor Tom Wolf, Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-2.0
The Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act (1969) allowed government funding to help supplement teachers' salaries in religiously affiliated schools. The Act stipulated that the teachers receiving the funds had to teach only subjects that were also taught in public schools and had to agree not to teach religious classes. All 250 recipients of the funds worked for Catholic schools.
People in both states decided to sue the states over the laws. In Rhode Island, a group of citizens sued the state in a case calledEarley et al.v.DiCenso.Similarly, in Pennsylvania, a group of taxpayers brought a case, including a parent named Alton Lemon whose child attended public school. The case was calledLemon v. Kurtzman.
The Rhode Island court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it represented an "excessive entanglement" with government and religion, and could be seen as supporting religion, which would violate theEstablishment Clause.
However, the Pennsylvania court said that the Pennsylvania law was permissible.
Because of the contradiction between the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania rulings, theSupreme Courtstepped in to make a decision. Both cases were rolled under Lemon v. Kurtzman.
Figure 3: The case of Lemon v. Kurtzman went to theSupreme Court, pictured above. Source: Joe Ravi, Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-3.0
The Supreme Court focused on one central question in Lemon v. Kurtzman: Do Pennsylvania and Rhode Island's laws providing some state funding to non-public, non-secular (i.e. religiously affiliated) schools violate theFirst Amendment? Specifically, does it violate theEstablishment Clause?
Those who thought the answer to the central question was "yes" brought up the following points:
Everson v. Board of Education and the Wall of Separation
Opponents of the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island laws pointed to the precedent set inEverson v. Board of Education(1947). The case centered around public funding for school buses that transported children to both public and private, religiously affiliated schools. The Supreme Court ruled that the practice did not violate theEstablishment Clause. They did, however, create a new doctrine around the "wall of separation" between church and state. In making the decision, they cautioned that the "wall of separation" must remain high.
那些认为赞成法律和那说t they did NOT violate the Establishment Clause pointed to the following arguments:
The Supreme Court answered "yes" in an 8-1 decision, siding with the court in Rhode Island that deemed the law an excessive entanglement with religion. They noted it would be impossible for the government to be able to monitor whether there was truly no injection of religion into the secular school subjects. To adhere to the Establishment Clause, the government can have no intimate financial involvement with religiously affiliated institutions.
In making the decision, the court developed the Lemon Test, a three-pronged test to assess whether a law violates the Establishment Clause. According to the Lemon Test, the law must:
Each prong of the test had been used individually in previous Supreme Court cases. The Lemon Test combined all three and set the precedent for future Supreme Court cases.
The Lemon Test was initially praised as the best way to assessEstablishment Clausecases. However, other judges criticized it or ignored it. Some conservative judges said it was too restrictive and that government should be more accommodating of religion, while others said things like "excessive entanglement" were impossible to define.
In 1992, theSupreme Courtdecided to ignore the Lemon Test to make a decision about a school that had invited a rabbi to provide a prayer at a public school (Lee v. Weisman, 1992). They ruled against the school, saying the government had no business composing prayers that other people had to recite at school. However, they said that they didn't feel it was necessary to run it through the Lemon Test.
While theSupreme Courtprioritized the separation between church and state over religious accommodation inLemon v. Kurtzman, they went a different direction a few decades later inZelman v. Simmons-Harris(2002). In a close (5-4) decision, they decided that publicly funded school vouchers could be used to send students to religiously affiliated schools.
The most recent blow to the Lemon Test came in the case ofKennedy v. Bremerton School District(2022). The case centered around a coach at a public school who prayed with the team before and after games. The school asked him to stop because they didn't want to risk violating theEstablishment Clause, while Kennedy argued that they were violating his right toFreedom of Speech. TheSupreme Courtruled in his favor and threw out the Lemon Test, saying that courts should look at "historical practices and understandings" instead.
Lemon v. Kurtzman was a landmark Supreme Court decision that prohibited state governments from providing taxpayer funding to religiously affiliated schools.
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island passed laws that allowed state funding to be used for teachers' salaries and classroom materials in religiously affiliated schools. The Supreme Court ruled that the laws violated the Establishment Clause and the separation of church and state.
The group of taxpayers and parents who brought the case to the Supreme Court because they didn't want their money going to religious schools won the case.
柠檬诉库兹曼很重要,因为它表明that government funding couldn't be used for religious schools and because it created the Lemon Test, which was used for subsequent cases.
Lemon v. Kurtzman established that using government funding for religious schools violated the Establishment Clause and the separation between church and state.
Be perfectly prepared on time with an individual plan.
Test your knowledge with gamified quizzes.
Create and find flashcards in record time.
Create beautiful notes faster than ever before.
Have all your study materials in one place.
Upload unlimited documents and save them online.
Identify your study strength and weaknesses.
Set individual study goals and earn points reaching them.
Stop procrastinating with our study reminders.
Earn points, unlock badges and level up while studying.
Create flashcards in notes completely automatically.
Create the most beautiful study materials using our templates.
Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.
