Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist
413 U.S. 756 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute providing financial aid to nonpublic sectarian schools through direct grants for maintenance and repair, or indirectly through parental tuition reimbursements or tax credits, is unconstitutional if it has the primary effect of advancing religion.
Facts:
- In 1972, New York enacted a law creating three financial aid programs for its nonpublic elementary and secondary schools.
- The first program provided direct money grants to qualifying nonpublic schools in low-income areas for the 'maintenance and repair' of school facilities and equipment.
- The second program provided tuition reimbursements, up to $100 per child, to low-income parents (taxable income under $5,000) who sent their children to nonpublic schools.
- The third program offered a form of tax relief, calculated by a statutory formula unrelated to actual tuition paid, for parents with incomes up to $25,000 who sent their children to nonpublic schools and were ineligible for the reimbursement program.
- Approximately 85% of the nonpublic schools eligible to benefit from these programs were religiously affiliated.
- The law placed no restrictions on the use of the maintenance grants to ensure they were applied only to secular facilities, nor did it restrict how parents used the reimbursements or tax savings.
Procedural Posture:
- The Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty (PEARL) and other taxpayers sued state officials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The plaintiffs alleged the state's financial aid programs violated the Establishment Clause and sought an injunction.
- A three-judge District Court was convened to hear the case.
- The District Court held that the maintenance and repair grants (§ 1) and the tuition reimbursement program (§ 2) were unconstitutional.
- In a split decision, the District Court upheld the constitutionality of the tax benefit program (§§ 3-5).
- Both the plaintiffs (appellants) and the state officials (appellees) appealed the adverse portions of the District Court's judgment directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do New York's laws providing direct grants for maintenance and repair to nonpublic schools, tuition reimbursements to parents of nonpublic school children, and tax benefits to those same parents violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, the laws violate the Establishment Clause. State financial aid to sectarian schools, whether provided directly to the institution or indirectly through parents, violates the Establishment Clause if it has a primary effect that advances religion. All three New York programs fail this test. The 'maintenance and repair' grants are unrestricted and could be used to maintain facilities where religious activities occur, thus directly subsidizing the school's religious mission. The tuition reimbursements and tax benefits, though given to parents, create an incentive to attend sectarian schools and provide unrestricted financial support to those institutions, differing from permissible aid like bus fares or secular textbooks which are neutral and non-ideological. Because this aid is not limited to secular purposes, its inevitable effect is to advance the religious mission of sectarian schools.
Concurring - Chief Justice Burger
No, as to the tuition and tax programs. While the direct maintenance grants are unconstitutional, the tuition grants and tax relief programs are permissible aid to individuals, not institutions. These programs are indistinguishable in principle from the bus fare reimbursements upheld in Everson and the textbook loans in Allen. The state is merely equalizing the costs for parents who save the state money by not using public schools, and the fact that parents may choose to use this general welfare benefit for sectarian education does not violate the Establishment Clause. The aid is to parents and children, and the ultimate financial benefit to the schools is an indirect and incidental effect.
Dissenting - Justice White
No. The Court's invalidation of these programs is contrary to the long-range interests of the country. Given the state's interest in education, it is reasonable for it to contribute to the secular education of all children, including those in sectarian schools, particularly when this relieves a significant financial burden on the public school system. The primary effect of these laws is to preserve the secular functions of these schools, and any resulting incidental benefit to religion should not invalidate them. The Court should not create unnecessary obstacles for parents who seek a religious, as well as secular, education for their children.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No, as to the tuition and tax programs. The Court's reasoning is irreconcilable with Walz v. Tax Comm'n, which established that tax benefits are qualitatively different from direct grants. A tax deduction is the government abstaining from collecting revenue, not transferring public funds. The benefit here is attenuated, as it is only a partial reduction in taxes for parents, not a full exemption for a house of worship. This tax relief is analytically no different from other permissible deductions and is a form of 'benevolent neutrality' consistent with the Establishment Clause.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforced the 'primary effect' prong of the Lemon test as a substantial barrier to state aid for religious schools. It established that channeling aid through parents via tuition reimbursements or tax credits does not immunize a program from Establishment Clause scrutiny if its ultimate effect is to provide unrestricted subsidies to sectarian institutions. The ruling narrowed the permissible forms of state assistance to religious schools, distinguishing general, secular welfare benefits (like bus fares) from aid that directly supports the core educational, and thus religious, mission of these schools, thereby shaping church-state jurisprudence for decades.
Unlock the full brief for Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist