 | This articleis missing information about the opinion of the court, as well as its concurring and dissenting opinions. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on thetalk page.(June 2022) |
| Lemon v. Kurtzman | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 3, 1971 Decided June 28, 1971 | |
| Full case name | Alton T. Lemon, et al. v.David H. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, et al.; John R. Earley, et al. v. John DiCenso, et al.;William P. Robinson, Jr. v. John DiCenso, et al. |
| Citations | 403U.S.602 (more) 91 S. Ct. 2105; 29L. Ed. 2d 745; 1971U.S. LEXIS 19 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Lemon v. Kurtzman, 310F. Supp.35 (E.D. Pa. 1969); probable jurisdiction noted,397 U.S. 1034 (1970); DiCenso v. Robinson, 316F. Supp.112 (D.R.I. 1970); probable jurisdiction noted, consolidated,400 U.S. 901 (1970). |
| Subsequent | On remand to 348F. Supp.300 (E.D. Pa. 1972),affirmed,411 U.S.192 (1973) |
| Holding | |
| For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must (1) have a legitimate secular purpose, (2) not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion and (3) not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by Black, Douglas, Harlan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Douglas, joined by Black, Brennan, Marshall (who filed a separate statement) |
| Concur/dissent | White |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I; R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. 16-51-1et seq. (Supp. 1970); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, §§ 5601-5609 (Supp. 1971) | |
Abrogated by | |
| Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) | |
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before theSupreme Court of the United States.[1] The court ruled in an 8–0 decision thatPennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented throughDavid Kurtzman) from 1968 was unconstitutional and in an 8–1 decision thatRhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act was unconstitutional, violating theEstablishment Clause of theFirst Amendment.[2] The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools (mostlyCatholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials.[3]
The Court applied a three-prong test, which became known as theLemon test (named after the lead plaintiffAlton Lemon), to decide whether the state statutes violated the Establishment Clause.[4][5][6]
The Court held that the Establishment Clause required that a statute satisfy all parts of a three-prong test:[4]
In the 1985 caseWallace v. Jaffree, the Supreme Court stated that the effect prong and the entanglement prong need not be examined if the law in question had no obvious secular purpose.[7] InCorporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos (1987) the Supreme Court wrote that the purpose prong's requirement of a secular legislative purpose did not mean that a law's purpose must be unrelated to religion, because this would amount to a requirement, in the words ofZorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306 (1952), at 314, "that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups." Instead, "Lemon's 'purpose' requirement aims at preventing the relevant governmental decisionmaker—in this case, Congress—from abandoning neutrality and acting with the intent of promoting a particular point of view in religious matters."[8] The Supreme Court further explained inMcCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005) that" "When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government’s ostensible object is to take sides."[9]
The act at issue inLemon stipulated that "eligible teachers must teach only courses offered in the public schools, using only materials used in the public schools, and must agree not to teach courses in religion." Still, a three-judge panel found 25% of the State's elementary students attended private schools, about 95% of those attended Roman Catholic schools, and the sole beneficiaries under the act were 250 teachers at Roman Catholic schools.
The Court found that the parochial school system was "an integral part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church", and held that the Act fostered "excessive entanglement" between government and religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause.[1]
Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion.[1]
TheLemon test was modified,[10] according to theFirst Amendment Center, in the 1997 caseAgostini v. Felton in which the U.S. Supreme Court combined the effect prong and the entanglement prong. This resulted in an unchanged purpose prong and a modified effect prong.[5] As the First Amendment Center notes, "The Court inAgostini identified three primary criteria for determining whether a government action has a primary effect of advancing religion: 1) government indoctrination, 2) defining the recipients of government benefits based on religion, and 3) excessive entanglement between government and religion."[5]
Conservative justices, such asClarence Thomas andAntonin Scalia, have criticized the application of theLemon test.[11] Justice Scalia compared the test to a "ghoul in a late night horror movie" inLamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993).[11]
The Supreme Court has applied theLemon test inSanta Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000),[12] while inMcCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005) the court did not overturn theLemon test, even though it was urged to do so by the petitioner.[13]
The test was also central toKitzmiller v. Dover, a 2005intelligent design case before theUnited States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.[14]
TheFourth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the test inInt'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump (2017) upholding a preliminary injunction againstPresident Donald Trump's executive order banning immigration from certain majority-Muslim countries.[15]
In concurring opinions inThe American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019), some of the Court's more conservative justices heavily criticized theLemon test. JusticeSamuel Alito stated that theLemon test had "shortcomings" and that "as Establishment Clause cases involving a great array of laws and practices came to the Court, it became more and more apparent that theLemon test could not resolve them."[16] JusticeBrett Kavanaugh noted that the Court "no longer applies the old test articulated inLemon v. Kurtzman" and said that "the Court’s decisions over the span of several decades demonstrate that theLemon test is not good law and does not apply to Establishment Clause cases."[16] Although the Court did not overruleLemon v. Kurtzman inAmerican Legion v. American Humanist Association, Justice Thomas stated that he "would take the logical next step and overrule theLemon test in all contexts" because "theLemon test is not good law."[16] Additionally, JusticeNeil Gorsuch calledLemon v. Kurtzman a "misadventure" and claimed that it has now been "shelved" by the Court.[16] JusticeElena Kagan, however, defended theLemon test, stating that "although I agree that rigid application of theLemon test does not solve every Establishment Clause problem, I think that test's focus on purposes and effects is crucial in evaluating government action in this sphere—as this very suit shows."[16]
InKennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion did not explicitly overturnLemon, but instructed lower courts to disregardLemon in favor of a new standard for evaluating religious actions in a public school.[17] InGroff v. DeJoy,600 U.S.447 (2023), in an opinion for a unanimous Court, Justice Alito describedLemon v. Kurtzman, and thus theLemon test, as "now abrogated".[18]
Works related toLemon v. Kurtzman at Wikisource