Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education
50 S. Ct. 335, 281 U.S. 370, 1930 U.S. LEXIS 391 (1930)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State taxation used to purchase and supply secular textbooks to all schoolchildren, including those in private and sectarian schools, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because it serves a public purpose—the education of children—and does not constitute a taking of private property for a private purpose.
Facts:
- The State of Louisiana enacted legislation (Acts No. 100 and No. 143 of 1928) that used revenue from a state severance tax.
- The legislation directed these funds to be used to purchase school books.
- These school books were to be supplied free of cost to all school children in the state.
- The program supplied books to children attending public, private, and sectarian (religious) schools.
- The state board of education provided the same secular textbooks to all students, regardless of the school they attended, and did not supply any books adapted for religious instruction.
Procedural Posture:
- Citizens and taxpayers of Louisiana (Cochran, et al.) sued the Louisiana State Board of Education in a state trial court.
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the state from expending tax funds to supply free school books to children in private and religious schools.
- The trial court refused to issue the injunction, ruling in favor of the State Board of Education.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law that uses public tax funds to provide secular textbooks to all students, including those attending private and religious schools, constitute a taking of private property for a private purpose in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Hughes
No. A state law using public funds to provide secular textbooks to all students, including those in religious schools, does not constitute a taking of private property for a private purpose and is therefore constitutional. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the legislation is to benefit the public, not private institutions. The appropriations are made for the children and the resulting benefit to the state through an educated populace, not for the schools themselves. The schools receive no money and are not relieved of any financial obligation. Because the aid flows directly to the children in the form of secular books, and the state's interest is the broad public good of education, the use of tax funds is for a valid public purpose.
Analysis:
This case established the foundational "child benefit theory," which allows for government aid to students in religious schools under certain conditions. It created a crucial precedent by distinguishing between aid that directly benefits a religious institution and aid that benefits a child for a secular purpose, even if that child attends a religious school. This theory became a cornerstone of First Amendment jurisprudence, paving the way for future rulings that permit other forms of indirect, secular aid to parochial school students, such as transportation or health services. The decision shifted the constitutional focus from the nature of the school to the nature and direct beneficiary of the state's aid.
