The Case: Lemon T. Al. V. Kurtzman 403 US
The Case: Lemon Et al. V. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
The Facts: Pennsylvania and Rhode Island had statutes that allowed the state to pay for parts of non-secular, non-public education such as teachers instructional materials, salaries, and textbooks for religious subjects. The appellants in Pennsylvania believed that this was violating the separation of church and state described in the First Amendment. In the Rhode Island case, the appellees sued to have the statute in question declared unconstitutional by arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The district court found in favor of the appellees and held that the statute violated the First Amendment.
Procedural History:
Issue:
1. Are the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment?
2. Are the same statutes in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Decision:
1. Yes, Both statutes were unconstitutional by the Establishment and …show more content…
It was determined that the plaintiffs failed to show any part of the statute led to a denied admission to any non public school on racial or religious grounds. So the complaint of violating the 14th amendment was not discussed and dismissed for lack of standing.
Concurrences:
DOUGLAS: said the intrusion of the government into the running of non-public schools through grants and other funding creates the entanglement that the Establishment Clause prohibits and that non-secular schools are so thoroughly governed by religion that any amount of public funding supports those doctrines, and is therefore against the constitution.
BLACK
BRENNAN: argued that the danger was that religion would infiltrate the government and the government would push secularization onto religious creeds. An analysis of the statutes in question shows that they impermissible involve the government in “essentially religious activities,” which the Establishment Clause is meant to
The Facts: Pennsylvania and Rhode Island had statutes that allowed the state to pay for parts of non-secular, non-public education such as teachers instructional materials, salaries, and textbooks for religious subjects. The appellants in Pennsylvania believed that this was violating the separation of church and state described in the First Amendment. In the Rhode Island case, the appellees sued to have the statute in question declared unconstitutional by arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The district court found in favor of the appellees and held that the statute violated the First Amendment.
Procedural History:
Issue:
1. Are the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment?
2. Are the same statutes in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Decision:
1. Yes, Both statutes were unconstitutional by the Establishment and …show more content…
It was determined that the plaintiffs failed to show any part of the statute led to a denied admission to any non public school on racial or religious grounds. So the complaint of violating the 14th amendment was not discussed and dismissed for lack of standing.
Concurrences:
DOUGLAS: said the intrusion of the government into the running of non-public schools through grants and other funding creates the entanglement that the Establishment Clause prohibits and that non-secular schools are so thoroughly governed by religion that any amount of public funding supports those doctrines, and is therefore against the constitution.
BLACK
BRENNAN: argued that the danger was that religion would infiltrate the government and the government would push secularization onto religious creeds. An analysis of the statutes in question shows that they impermissible involve the government in “essentially religious activities,” which the Establishment Clause is meant to