Lemon

Ben McCartney

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Argued Wednesday, March 3, 1971 Decided Monday, June 28, 1971

Background: Lemon v. Kurtzman brought together three separate cases (Earley v. DiCenso and Robinson v. DiCenso in addition to Lemon v. Kurtzman) to argue statutes that were passed in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. The Rhode Island statute allowed for a 15% supplement to be added to the salaries of nonpublic school teacher, paid for by the state. The Pennsylvania statute allowed for taxpayer money to be used for assistance in the payment of teachers' salaries and the purchasing of textbooks and other school supplies in nonpublic schools to be used for the teaching of secular subjects. The assistance given to parochial schools brought the case to the Supreme Court because it was seen as violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Lemon fought against the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania laws, while Kurtzman fought to protect them.

Question: Does providing financial aid for teaching necessities to parochial schools to teach secular subjects violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

The Supreme Court decided 8-0 that the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violated the First Amendment because the aid provided to the parochial schools promoted religion on behalf of the government and involved an entanglement between government and religion. This case spawned the "Lemon Test" which defined the guidelines regarding legislation establishing a religion. First, the law in question must promote a secular purpose. Second, the law cannot promote or inhibit any religion. Finally, the law cannot create an entanglement between government and religion.

McKenzie Connell

Lemon v. Kurtzman- 1971

This case was tried in conjunction with three other cases, Earley v. DiCenso and Robinson v. DiCenso, under an issue dealing with the First Amendment Establishment Clause. In Rhode Island, there was a statute that allowed for nonpublic elementary school salaries by 15 percent. That is, 15% of the public taxpayer monies. Most of these funds were used on Catholic Schools. In Pennsylvania, a statute allowed for public taxpayer monies to supplement the nonpublic school funding. These funds went to reimbursing the teachers' salaries that taught secular subjects in these nonpublic schools. Again, most of the schools effected by this salary were Catholic.

Does the provision of public taxpayers' to fund nonpublic schools in order to teach secular subjects violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, voted in favor of Lemon. They ruled that yes, the provision of public funds to nonpublic was a violation of the Establishment Clause. The justices stated that the funds given to the schools furthered the teaching of religious beliefs and that the involvement of the state in matters of religious schools automatically involves the state in religious matter. Thus, entangling them in the separation of church and state.