Zorach v. Clauson

Supreme Court of United States
343 U.S. 306 (1952)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A public school program that permits students, with parental consent, to leave school grounds during the school day for off-campus religious instruction does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as it is a permissible accommodation of religion rather than an establishment thereof.

Facts:

New York City implemented a 'released time' program allowing public school students to leave campus during the school day.
To be released, a student's parents had to provide a written request.
The purpose of the release was for students to attend religious instruction or devotional exercises at private religious centers away from school grounds.
Students who were not released for religious instruction remained in their classrooms.
All costs for the program, including application blanks, were paid for by the participating religious organizations, not by public funds.
The religious organizations provided weekly reports to the schools, listing which released students had failed to attend the religious instruction.

Procedural Posture:

Tessim Zorach and Esta Gluck, parents of public school children, sued the New York City Board of Education in a New York state court of first instance.
The parents sought a declaration that the 'released time' program was unconstitutional and an order to abolish it.
The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, upheld the constitutionality of the law.
Zorach and Gluck (appellants) appealed the decision of the New York Court of 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 New York City public school program that allows students to be released from school grounds during the school day to receive religious instruction at religious centers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Douglas

No. The New York 'released time' program does not violate the Establishment Clause because it is a permissible accommodation of the religious needs of the people. The program is fundamentally different from the one struck down in McCollum v. Board of Education because religious instruction does not take place in public school classrooms and no public funds are expended. The school system does not coerce students into religious instruction; it simply adjusts its schedule. The First Amendment requires a separation of church and state, but it does not require hostility or 'callous indifference' towards religion. Prohibiting such accommodation would prefer those who believe in no religion over those who do, contrary to the nation's tradition of respecting the religious nature of its people.

Dissenting - Justice Black

Yes. The program violates the Establishment Clause. There is no significant difference between this New York program and the Illinois system invalidated in McCollum. The crucial element is not the location of the instruction, but the 'utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith.' By manipulating its compulsory education laws to help religious sects get pupils, the state is creating a combination of Church and State, not a separation. The state uses the 'pressure of this state machinery' to channel children into sectarian classes, which is precisely what the First Amendment forbids.

Dissenting - Justice Frankfurter

Yes. The program violates the Establishment Clause. The majority misses the essential fact that the school system is not 'closing its doors' for everyone but is operating to keep non-participating students in their classrooms. This creates a coercive environment. The majority's reliance on the absence of evidence of coercion is misplaced, as the appellants were denied the opportunity to prove coercion at trial. The school is being used as 'the instrument for securing attendance at denominational classes,' which breaches the principles established in McCollum.

Dissenting - Justice Jackson

Yes. The program is unconstitutional because it is founded upon the state's power of coercion. The system works by compelling students to attend school and then releasing them only on the condition that they attend religious instruction. The school serves as a 'temporary jail' for pupils who do not go to Church, and the truant officer ensures compliance, creating governmental constraint in support of religion. The distinction between this case and McCollum is 'trivial, almost to the point of cynicism,' as both rely on the coercive power of the compulsory school system to aid religion.

Analysis:

This decision marked a significant shift from the strict separationist view of McCollum v. Board of Education, establishing a more accommodationist interpretation of the Establishment Clause. By focusing on the off-campus location and lack of public funding, the Court created a crucial distinction that allows for some level of cooperation between public schools and religious organizations. This ruling narrowed the application of McCollum and provided a constitutional basis for released time programs nationwide, influencing subsequent jurisprudence by permitting passive government accommodation of religion so long as it does not involve direct aid or coercion.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Zorach v. Clauson (1952)

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

Premium Feature