Levitt v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty
1973 U.S. LEXIS 29, 413 U.S. 472, 37 L. Ed. 2d 736 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute providing direct, lump-sum cash reimbursements to nonpublic sectarian schools for the costs of state-mandated services, such as teacher-prepared testing and recordkeeping, violates the Establishment Clause because the aid is not restricted to secular functions and carries a substantial risk of subsidizing the schools' religious mission.
Facts:
- In 1970, New York enacted a law appropriating funds to reimburse nonpublic schools for the costs of state-mandated services.
- These services included testing, recordkeeping, and reporting, with the most expensive being the administration and grading of tests.
- The tests included both state-prepared exams and traditional tests prepared by the nonpublic school teachers themselves.
- Church-sponsored schools that imposed religious restrictions on admissions and faculty, required attendance at religious activities, and had a substantial purpose of inculcating religious values were eligible for the funds.
- Qualifying schools received a fixed lump-sum payment per pupil ($27 for grades 1-6, $45 for grades 7-12).
- The law did not require schools to account for how the funds were spent, nor did it include a provision for state audits to ensure the payments did not exceed the actual costs of secular services.
- Schools were not required to return any funds received in excess of their actual expenses for the mandated services.
Procedural Posture:
- New York taxpayers and an association (appellees) filed a lawsuit against state officials Levitt and Nyquist (appellants) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The lawsuit sought an injunction, claiming the state law violated the Establishment Clause.
- A three-judge District Court was convened to hear the case.
- Following a hearing, a majority of the District Court permanently enjoined the enforcement of the Act, holding it unconstitutional.
- The state officials (appellants) appealed this decision directly 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 New York law that reimburses nonpublic schools, including sectarian ones, with a lump-sum per-pupil payment for costs incurred in administering state-mandated tests and maintaining records violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes, the New York law violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A state cannot provide direct financial aid to sectarian schools for core educational functions without adequate safeguards to prevent the funds from advancing the schools' religious mission. A significant portion of the reimbursement is for traditional teacher-prepared tests, which are an integral part of the teaching process. There is a substantial risk that these tests, prepared by teachers in religious institutions, will be used to inculcate religious doctrine. Because the statute provides no mechanism to ensure the funds are used only for secular purposes, the aid for secular functions is not identifiable and separable from aid to sectarian activities, giving it the impermissible primary effect of advancing religion. The state's argument that it may reimburse any service it 'mandates' is rejected, as the constitutional inquiry always focuses on whether the aid advances religion or creates excessive entanglement.
Concurring - Justices Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall
Yes, the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed. This conclusion is compelled by the Court's decisions in Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist and Sloan v. Lemon.
Dissenting - Justice White
No. Justice White dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict application of the 'primary effect' prong of the Lemon test to direct financial aid for sectarian schools. The Court established that simply mandating a service does not give the state a blank check to fund its performance within a religious institution. By focusing on the inseparable nature of teacher-prepared testing from the overall teaching process, the case makes it exceptionally difficult for states to directly fund core instructional activities in parochial schools. This holding solidified a strong line against direct monetary subsidies that are not meticulously restricted to identifiable, secular uses, thereby shaping the landscape for state aid to nonpublic education for decades.
Unlock the full brief for Levitt v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty