Everson v. Board of Education
330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit a state from funding a general public welfare program that provides a secular benefit, such as safe transportation, to all students, even if some of those students attend sectarian schools.
Facts:
- A New Jersey statute authorized local school districts to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from school, including non-profit private schools.
- The Board of Education of Ewing Township passed a resolution authorizing reimbursement to parents for money they expended on bus transportation for their children.
- The transportation was provided by the regular public transportation system, not by school-specific buses.
- A portion of the reimbursements was paid to parents of children attending Catholic parochial schools.
- These Catholic schools provided secular education that met state requirements, but also provided regular religious instruction in the Catholic faith.
- Arch E. Everson, a taxpayer in the Ewing school district, objected to the use of tax funds for these reimbursements.
Procedural Posture:
- Arch E. Everson, as a district taxpayer, filed suit against the Ewing Township Board of Education in a New Jersey state court, challenging the reimbursements.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court (a trial-level appellate court at the time) held that the state was without power under the state constitution to authorize the payments.
- The Board of Education appealed to the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, which was the state's highest court.
- The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals reversed the lower court, holding the statute and resolution did not violate the state or federal constitutions.
- Everson appealed the decision of the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals 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 statute that authorizes reimbursement to parents for the cost of bus transportation for their children to attend parochial schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
No. The state statute does not violate the Establishment Clause because it is public welfare legislation that benefits children and their parents, not the religious institution itself. The First Amendment requires the state to be neutral toward religion, not its adversary. The law does no more than provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools. This is analogous to providing general government services like police and fire protection, which are separate and indisputably marked off from the religious function of the schools. While the First Amendment has erected a 'wall of separation between church and State,' this statute does not breach that wall.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Jackson
Yes. The statute violates the Establishment Clause by providing a direct subsidy to religious education. The majority's comparison to general public services like police and fire protection is flawed because this reimbursement program is not a general service; it uses a religious test to determine eligibility. Before authorities can issue a payment, they must ask if the child attends a public or Catholic school, and payment is withheld for students of other faiths or for-profit private schools. The program directly aids religious schools, which are an integral part of the Roman Catholic Church, and thus constitutes an unconstitutional use of taxpayer money to support a religious institution.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rutledge
Yes. The statute violates the Establishment Clause by forcing taxpayers to contribute money for the propagation of religious opinions. Based on the history of the First Amendment and the writings of Madison and Jefferson, the clause was intended to create a complete and permanent separation of religion and government, forbidding any form of public aid or support for religion, regardless of the amount. Transportation is an essential and necessary element of the educational process, and funding it for parochial schools directly supports the religious instruction provided there. The 'public welfare' argument is a fallacy that ignores the religious purpose and effect of the aid, threatening to erode the wall of separation and entangle the state in religious controversy.
Analysis:
Everson v. Board of Education is a landmark case that incorporated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to apply to the states. It established the influential 'child benefit' theory, which permits state aid to flow to religious schools if the aid's primary purpose and effect are to benefit the student in a secular manner, rather than the institution. Although the opinion uses strong separationist language, famously invoking Jefferson's 'wall of separation between church and State,' its holding is accommodationist, creating a lasting tension in Establishment Clause jurisprudence and setting the stage for future debates over the constitutionality of various forms of aid to religious education.
Unlock the full brief for Everson v. Board of Education