Tilton v. Richardson

Supreme Court of United States
403 U.S. 672 (1971)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Government aid for the construction of facilities at church-related institutions of higher education is constitutional under the Establishment Clause if the aid is for secular purposes, its primary effect does not advance religion, and it does not create excessive government entanglement.

Facts:

Congress passed the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 to provide federal construction grants to institutions of higher education to expand their academic facilities.
The Act expressly excluded funding for any facility used for sectarian instruction, as a place of religious worship, or in connection with a divinity school program.
A provision in the Act stated that the federal government's interest in the funded facility, and thus the restriction on its religious use, would expire after 20 years.
Four church-related colleges in Connecticut—Sacred Heart University, Annhurst College, Fairfield University, and Albertus Magnus College—received federal grants under the Act.
The grants funded the construction of five specific projects: a library at Sacred Heart, a music and arts building at Annhurst, a science building and a library at Fairfield, and a language laboratory at Albertus Magnus.
The four recipient institutions were governed by Catholic religious organizations and had predominantly Catholic faculties and student bodies.
While the colleges required students to take theology courses, the courses were taught according to academic standards, the colleges subscribed to principles of academic freedom, and they did not require students to attend religious services.

Procedural Posture:

Citizens and taxpayers of Connecticut sued federal officials and four church-related colleges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Act.
A three-judge panel of the District Court was convened to hear the constitutional challenge.
The District Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act and ruled in favor of the defendant colleges and government officials.
The plaintiff taxpayers filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.

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 the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, which provides federal construction grants to church-related institutions of higher education for facilities used exclusively for secular educational purposes, violate the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Burger

No, with one exception. The Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 largely does not violate the Religion Clauses, but the provision limiting the secular-use restriction to 20 years is unconstitutional. Applying the three-part test, the Court found the Act has a legitimate secular purpose: to expand educational opportunities. Its primary effect is not to advance religion, as the aid is for neutral, secular facilities, and there is less risk of religious indoctrination at the college level compared to primary or secondary schools. College students are less impressionable, and the recipient institutions demonstrated a commitment to academic freedom. Finally, the Act does not foster excessive entanglement because the aid is a one-time, non-ideological construction grant, requiring only minimal surveillance, unlike ongoing aid for teacher salaries. However, the 20-year limitation on the use restriction is unconstitutional because it effectively becomes a contribution to a religious institution after that period; this provision is severable from the rest of the Act.

Dissenting - Justice Douglas

Yes, the Act violates the Establishment Clause. Any direct financial aid to a religious institution, regardless of its stated purpose, is unconstitutional because it supports the institution's overall sectarian mission. By funding construction, the government frees up the institution's own money for religious purposes. The distinction between a one-time grant and annual aid is constitutionally insignificant; a large, single violation is no less offensive to the First Amendment than small, recurring ones. Furthermore, enforcing the secular-use restriction would require continuous and searching government surveillance, creating the very kind of excessive entanglement the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent.

Analysis:

This decision established a significant legal distinction between government aid to church-related higher education and aid to parochial primary and secondary schools. The Court signaled a greater tolerance for aid to colleges, reasoning that factors like academic freedom and the maturity of students diminish the risk of religious indoctrination and excessive government entanglement. This created a new framework for analyzing Establishment Clause cases, making the level of education (K-12 vs. college) a critical factor and paving the way for future programs providing aid to religious universities that would be impermissible for lower schools.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Tilton v. Richardson (1971)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature