No. These laws are not okay because the government would have to get too involved with the religious schools. To make sure the money wasn't used for religion, government workers would have to constantly watch the teachers and check the schools' finances. This constant checking, or 'excessive entanglement,' breaks the rule of separating church and state. It could also lead to big political fights every year about giving tax money to religious groups.

No. Religious schools exist to teach religion. You can't really separate the math class from the religious mission of the school. To make sure no religion was being taught with state money, the government would have to put spies in every classroom, which is wrong. But if they don't check, they'd be illegally funding religion.

No. Giving money directly to a religious school is different from giving all students bus rides or textbooks. When you give money to the school, you are helping its main goal, which is religious. The non-religious teaching is all mixed up with the religious mission, so you can't fund one without helping the other.

Yes. The court is wrong. The government should be allowed to support good education wherever it happens. The court just assumes that religious teachers can't teach a normal math class without bringing in religion. This creates a no-win situation: the states get in trouble if they don't check up on the schools, and they get in trouble if they do.

Yes, both states' laws broke the rules. Even though they tried to make sure the money only went to non-religious stuff, the states would have to watch the schools too closely to make sure they followed the rules. That's not allowed because it mixes the government and religion too much. The Court came up with a test: laws that give money to religious groups have to 1) have a non-religious purpose, 2) not mainly help or hurt religion, and 3) not mix the government and religion too much.

Making the states watch over the religious schools to see if they use the money right mixes church and state too much. The Constitution wants to keep the government out of religious groups' business. The government can't give money for non-religious classes in religious schools without also supporting the religious side. No government money should go to religious schools.

The Pennsylvania and Rhode Island laws are okay under the Constitution. States are allowed to support regular education in religious schools. As long as the money is only used for non-religious stuff, it doesn't mix government and religion too much. The laws here are careful to only give money for certain subjects. There's no proof that teachers snuck religion into regular classes. The Court should let these laws stand.

Yes, both states' laws broke the rules. Even though they tried to make sure the money only went to non-religious stuff, the states would have to watch the schools too closely to make sure they followed the rules. That’s not allowed because it mixes the government and religion too much. We came up with a test: laws that give money to religious groups have to 1) have a non-religious purpose, 2) not mainly help or hurt religion, and 3) not mix the government and religion too much.

Yes, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island broke the rules about separation of church and state. Making the states watch over the religious schools to see if they use the money right mixes church and state too much. The Constitution wants to keep the government out of religious groups' business. The government can't give money for non-religious classes in religious schools without also supporting the religious side. No government money should go to religious schools.

No, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island did not break the rules about separation of church and state. States are allowed to support regular education in religious schools. As long as the money is only used for non-religious stuff, it doesn't mix government and religion too much. The laws here are careful to only give money for certain subjects. There's no proof that teachers snuck religion into regular classes. I would let these laws stand.

I agree with the final decision, but I worry about how the state keeps a very close watch on religious schools because it ends up mixing government rules with church activities. I think that even when school funds are meant for regular classes, constant checking makes things too messy and too involved, which is different from what most other judges believe.

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion,... finally, the statute must not foster `an excessive government entanglement with religion.

It was intended to protect against "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity."

A government practice or policy runs afoul of the Establishment Clause if it has no secular purpose, its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or it fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.

—the Supreme Court articulated a three-part test to determine whether a statute violates the Establishment Clause.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."

Thus, the Court must look to "the character and purposes of the institutions that are benefited, the nature of the aid that the State provides, and the resulting relationship between the government and religious authority." Id

Yes. The state statutes violate the Establishment Clause because the cumulative impact of the relationship between government and the religious schools under these programs involves excessive entanglement. Although the statutes have a secular legislative purpose to enhance secular education, they fail the third part of the constitutional test. The pervasively religious nature of the church-related schools would require comprehensive, discriminating, and continuing state surveillance to ensure that state aid supports only secular education and that teachers remain religiously neutral. This necessary surveillance, along with the required inspection of school financial records to separate secular from religious costs, fosters an impermissible degree of government entanglement with religion. Furthermore, these programs create the potential for divisive political conflict along religious lines as groups lobby for annual appropriations, an evil the Establishment Clause was intended to prevent.

Yes. While joining the Court's opinion, this concurrence emphasizes that the very purpose of parochial schools is the propagation of a religious faith, making secular and religious instruction an inseparable 'organic whole.' To police the grants, the state would have to put 'a public investigator into every classroom,' which would be an intolerable entanglement. Conversely, if the state fails to perform such surveillance, public funds would inevitably be used to advance religion, violating the Establishment Clause.

Yes. The statutes are unconstitutional because direct subsidies of tax monies to sectarian institutions necessarily aid their religious mission. Unlike the indirect aid in cases like Everson (bus fares) or Allen (textbooks), these programs involve direct payments to the schools. In a parochial school, secular education and the religious mission are 'inextricably intertwined.' Therefore, subsidizing the secular function inevitably and impermissibly subsidizes the institution's 'essentially religious activities.'

No. The Court is 'surely quite wrong' in overturning the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes. The state has a right to support the secular education of children, whether in public or private schools, as this serves an overriding public purpose. The majority's conclusion that entanglement is inevitable rests on the 'untested assumption' that dedicated religious teachers cannot separate their secular instruction from their faith, a presumption contrary to the district court's findings in the Rhode Island case. The Court creates an 'insoluble paradox' where the state is unconstitutional if it doesn't ensure funds are used for secular purposes, but is also unconstitutional if it takes the steps to provide that assurance.

Yes, both statutes violate the Establishment Clause because they foster excessive government entanglement with religion. While the statutes may have a secular purpose and not directly advance religion, the extensive government oversight required to ensure compliance would entangle the states in church affairs. The Court established a three-part test (the Lemon Test) for laws challenged under the Establishment Clause: 1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) its principal effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. Here, the ongoing state surveillance needed to police the restrictions in the statutes results in excessive entanglement.

The surveillance required by the states to ensure compliance with the statutory restrictions on aid to parochial schools violates the Establishment Clause. The First Amendment was intended to keep government out of the affairs of religious institutions. The inspection, supervision and oversight needed here creates an impermissible entanglement between church and state. The states cannot finance the secular education in parochial schools without also financing the religious function of those schools. Any state aid to church-related schools violates the First Amendment.

The Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes are constitutional and do not violate the Establishment Clause. The states have a legitimate interest in supporting the secular education provided by parochial schools. So long as the aid is restricted to secular purposes, it does not have the primary effect of advancing religion nor does it excessively entangle the government in religion. The statutes here are carefully limited to supporting only secular subjects and materials. There is no evidence teachers have injected religion into secular courses. The Court should uphold these statutes as reasonable efforts to accommodate the states' interests in education while respecting the First Amendment.

Yes, both statutes violate the Establishment Clause because they foster excessive government entanglement with religion. While the statutes may have a secular purpose and not directly advance religion, the extensive government oversight required to ensure compliance would entangle the states in church affairs. We established a three-part test (the Lemon Test) for laws challenged under the Establishment Clause: 1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) its principal effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. Here, the ongoing state surveillance needed to police the restrictions in the statutes results in excessive entanglement.

Yes, the surveillance required by the states to ensure compliance with the statutory restrictions on aid to parochial schools violates the Establishment Clause. The First Amendment was intended to keep government out of the affairs of religious institutions. The inspection, supervision and oversight needed here creates an impermissible entanglement between church and state. The states cannot finance the secular education in parochial schools without also financing the religious function of those schools. Any state aid to church-related schools violates the First Amendment.

No, the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes are constitutional and do not violate the Establishment Clause. The states have a legitimate interest in supporting the secular education provided by parochial schools. So long as the aid is restricted to secular purposes, it does not have the primary effect of advancing religion nor does it excessively entangle the government in religion. The statutes here are carefully limited to supporting only secular subjects and materials. There is no evidence teachers have injected religion into secular courses. We should uphold these statutes as reasonable efforts to accommodate the states' interests in education while respecting the First Amendment.

I join the court’s judgment but write separately to highlight my reservations regarding the state's supervisory measures imposed on church-related schools. I concur because the requirement for continual oversight creates a significant risk of entangling government with religious affairs, thereby undermining the constitutional mandate of separation. Unlike the majority, I am more troubled by the potential for even minimal state intervention to intrude on the intrinsic religious mission of these institutions, as such monitoring compels a division between secular instruction and religious ethos that is both artificial and excessive.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

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