No, this law is constitutional. The law's purpose is to help kids get a good education, which is not a religious goal. The main people who benefit are the kids and their parents, who save money on books, not the religious schools themselves. This is like the government providing police and fire protection to everyone, including churches—it's a public service, not government support for religion. As long as the books themselves are not religious, it's okay.

No. The government is supposed to stay neutral about religion. This law is neutral because it's just trying to help kids learn and doesn't favor any religion. Since its purpose is not religious and it doesn't get the government tangled up in church business, it's allowed.

Yes, this law is definitely unconstitutional. It breaks the 'wall' between church and state. You can't use tax money to help religious schools, period. A textbook isn't like a bus ride; it's the main tool for teaching. Giving books to religious schools is the same as giving them money to help them operate, which the Constitution forbids.

Yes, this is unconstitutional. A bus ride doesn't teach ideas, but a textbook does. Religious schools will pick books that support their religious views, even if they're supposed to be 'non-religious' books about history or science. This will cause fights between religious groups and the government over which books are okay, which is exactly the kind of mess the Constitution tries to prevent.

Yes, this law is unconstitutional. This isn't a program where all kids get the same thing. The religious schools get to pick the specific books they want the government to buy for their students. It's like the government is taking a special order from the religious schools and paying the bill. That's direct support for religion, which is not allowed.

Yes, it's okay. The rule is meant to help all students learn, not to support any religion. The Court said this because the law has a good purpose (helping students learn) and doesn't mainly help or hurt religion. They thought it was fair because all students get the same help, no matter what school they go to. The Court also said that just because a school is religious doesn't mean everything they teach is about religion. They believed that giving out regular school books doesn't mean the government is supporting religion.

No, it's not okay. Justice Black thought this law clearly breaks the rule about keeping government and religion separate. He worried that using tax money to buy books for religious schools is the same as supporting those religions. He was afraid that if this is allowed, it might lead to the government giving more and more money to religious schools in the future. He believed the only way to protect people who follow different religions is to keep a strong wall between what the government does and what religions do.

No, it's not okay. Justice Douglas was worried that religious schools might choose books that secretly teach about their religion, even if the books seem normal. He gave examples of how some school books can have religious ideas hidden in them. He thought that if this law is allowed, different religious groups might fight over which books should be given out. He was concerned that this could make the government get too involved with religious schools.

No, it's not okay. Justice Fortas said that even though the law says the books are for students, really it's the religious schools that are choosing the books. He didn't think this was fair to everyone because it's not the same books that public schools use. He believed this was a special program just for religious schools, not a program that treats all students the same. He thought this was different from other things the government does, like providing bus rides, because the books are specially chosen by religious schools.

Yes, it's okay. Justice Harlan agreed with the main decision but wanted to explain more about why. He said the government should be neutral about religion, which means not favoring any religion or non-religion. He thought this law was okay because it was trying to do something good (help students learn) that the government is allowed to do, and it doesn't get the government too mixed up with religious stuff. He believed that as long as the government isn't trying to help religion specifically, and is just trying to help all students, it's not breaking the rules about religion.

No. The New York law does not violate the Constitution. To withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause, a law must have a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. The express purpose of this law—furthering educational opportunities—is secular. Its primary effect is not the advancement of religion, as the financial benefit flows to the parents and students, not the religious schools directly. The books are secular, ownership remains with the state, and they are furnished at the student's request. This program is analogous to the state-funded bus transportation for parochial students upheld in Everson v. Board of Education, which also indirectly benefited religious schools but was deemed constitutional as a general welfare program. The state has a legitimate interest in the quality of secular education provided in all schools, as recognized in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and providing secular textbooks supports that interest.

No. A government activity is permissible if it is calculated to achieve nonreligious purposes and does not involve the State so significantly and directly in the realm of the sectarian as to create divisive influences. The New York law meets this standard of neutrality because its purpose is to advance education, not religion, and it does not employ religion as its standard for action. Therefore, it is not forbidden by the religious clauses of the First Amendment.

Yes. The New York law is a flat, flagrant, and open violation of the Establishment Clause. It breaches the 'wall of separation between church and State' by compelling taxpayers to support religious institutions. Unlike bus fares, which are a general public service, textbooks are the most essential tool of education and directly aid the sectarian mission of religious schools. This use of tax-raised funds to purchase books for sectarian schools constitutes direct financial support for religious activities, which the First Amendment was expressly written to prevent.

Yes. This law violates the principle of separation of church and state. There is nothing ideological about a bus, but a textbook goes to the very heart of education and is the chief instrument for propagating a particular religious creed. Parochial schools will select the books that best promote their sectarian views, and even seemingly 'secular' texts on subjects like science or history can be written with a distinct religious bias. This program forces public school boards to either approve sectarian-oriented books or engage in battles with religious groups over textbook selection, creating the very church-state entanglement the First Amendment seeks to avoid.

Yes. The statute is unconstitutional because it is not a general program providing the same books to all students; rather, it is a specific program to use state funds to purchase particular books selected and prescribed by the sectarian schools themselves. This is not analogous to general services like police or fire protection, which are provided to all alike. This hand-tailored program furnishes special books chosen by religious authorities for their sectarian institutions, which constitutes an unconstitutional use of public funds to support an establishment of religion.

No. The law does not violate the Establishment Clause because it has a secular legislative purpose and its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. The Court reasoned that the law merely makes available to all children the benefits of a general program to lend school books free of charge. The financial benefit is to parents and children, not to schools. The Court applied the test from Abington School District v. Schempp, which requires that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause, there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. The Court found that the express purpose of the law was to further educational opportunities for young people and that the law's effects were not contrary to this purpose. The Court also noted that the books loaned must be approved by public school authorities and only secular books may receive approval. The Court rejected the argument that all teaching in sectarian schools is religious, recognizing that these schools pursue both religious instruction and secular education.

No. The law violates the Establishment Clause because it uses tax-raised funds to support religious schools. Justice Black argued that the law is a flat, flagrant, open violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He contended that the Establishment Clause forbids the government from using tax money to support religious activities or institutions in any amount. Black warned that this decision could lead to further government funding of religious schools, including for buildings and teacher salaries. He argued that the only way to protect minority religious groups is to keep the wall of separation between church and state high and impregnable.

No. The law violates the Establishment Clause because it allows religious schools to influence textbook selection, potentially promoting religious viewpoints. Justice Douglas argued that the parochial schools have the initiative to select the books they desire, which could lead to the selection of books that promote their sectarian creed. He provided examples of textbooks that, while ostensibly secular, contained religious content or perspectives. Douglas contended that this law would inevitably lead to contests over control of textbook distribution, with religious groups seeking to provide books that reflect their particular philosophy. He warned that this could result in the state becoming entangled with religious education.

No. The law violates the Establishment Clause because it uses public funds to buy textbooks selected and prescribed by sectarian schools. Justice Fortas argued that despite the claim that the books are furnished to students, the reality is that they are selected by sectarian authorities. He contended that this is not a general program treating all children alike, but a specific program to use state funds to buy books prescribed by sectarian schools. Fortas distinguished this case from Everson v. Board of Education, arguing that unlike bus rides, this statute calls for furnishing special, separate, and particular books chosen by religious sects for use in their sectarian schools.

Yes. The law is permissible under the First Amendment as it does not use religion as a basis for its operation and aims to provide nonreligious benefits that fall within the state's competence. Justice Harlan emphasized that the government's attitude toward religion must be one of neutrality. He argued that where the contested governmental activity is calculated to achieve nonreligious purposes within the state's competence, and where the activity does not involve the state so significantly and directly in the realm of the sectarian as to give rise to divisive influences and inhibitions of freedom, it is not forbidden by the religious clauses of the First Amendment. Harlan concluded that the New York law meets these criteria.

Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot