Learn about the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), including a summary, the ruling, and its significance. Discover what the Lemon Test is and its three parts.
Updated: 11/21/2023
Lemon v Kurtzman | Summary, Ruling & Significance
Table of Contents
- Lemon v. Kurtzman Overview
- Lemon v. Kurtzman Summary
- Lemon v. Kurtzman Ruling
- Lemon v. Kurtzman Significance
- Lesson Summary
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the significance of Lemon v Kurtzman?
The significance of the Lemon v. Kurtzman ruling is that the Court established a three-pronged analysis, called the Lemon Rule, to determine if a statute violated the First Amendment regarding the establishment of religion.
What is the Lemon test and how is it used?
The Lemon Test was used in Lemon v. Kurtzman to determine if the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island laws were constitutional. The Lemon Test has since been used to determine constitutionality in other Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
What are the 3 components of the Lemon test?
The three components of the Lemon Test are:
1. The statute has a secular legislative purpose.
2. The statute neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. The statute doesn't create entanglement of government and religion.
What happened in Lemon v Kurtzman?
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes providing a taxpayer-funded salary supplement to parochial school teachers violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
Table of Contents
- Lemon v. Kurtzman Overview
- Lemon v. Kurtzman Summary
- Lemon v. Kurtzman Ruling
- Lemon v. Kurtzman Significance
- Lesson Summary
In 1968, Pennsylvania enacted the Pennsylvania Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Act gave the state Superintendent of Public Instruction authority to reimburse nonpublic schools for certain secular educational services. The Act defined those services as:
- Teachers' salaries.
- Textbooks.
- Instructional materials.
For the reimbursement to be paid;
- Only certain specified secular subjects were taught.
- The Superintendent must approve textbooks and instructional materials.
- No subject matter teaching religious, moral norms, or modes of worship of any sect.
In 1969, Rhode Island enacted The Salary Supplement Act, which provided that state funds give private school teachers a 15% salary supplement. The law stipulated that teachers:
- Must only teach courses also offered in public schools.
- Must only use educational material already used in public schools.
- Must agree to refrain from teaching any religious courses.
In both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, the overwhelming majority of private schools were Catholic parochial schools.
Alton Lemon and other taxpayers brought suit against the Rhode Island law to declare an unconstitutional establishment of religion under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Lemon et al. argued that the law violated both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The District Court in Rhode Island ruled in favor of Lemon, stating that the law created ''excessive entanglement'' between government and religion and that Catholic parochial schools were an essential part of the Catholic Church's religious mission.
The Pennsylvania District Court ruled against Lemon that the Pennsylvania Act violated neither the Establishment nor the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Because the district courts rendered contradictory judgments, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 1971. Since the Rhode Island case had ruled in favor of Lemon, the respondent in the Supreme Court case was Kurtzman in his capacity as Superintendent of Public Instruction in Pennsylvania.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
You must cCreate an account to continue watching
Register to view this lesson
Are you a student or a teacher?
Create Your Account To Continue Watching
As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you succeed.
Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons.
Try it now
It only takes a few minutes to setup and you can cancel any time.
Already registered? Log in here for access
BackResources created by teachers for teachers
Over 30,000 video lessons
& teaching resources‐all
in one place.
I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. It’s like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. I feel like it’s a lifeline.
Jennifer B.
Teacher
Back
Your next lesson will play in
10 seconds
The Supreme Court had ruled previously on Establishment of Religion issues.
- In Everson v. Board of Education, in 1947, the Court ruled that taxpayer funds to bus parochial school children did not breach the wall of separation between church and state. The Court also held that, due to the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment's Establishment Clause also applied to local and state governments.
- In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Board of Education of Central School District No. 1 v. Allen that a state law mandating public school officials lend textbooks to all students grade 7-12, including parochial school students, did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court ruled that since the primary purpose of the law was the improvement of education for all students, the law did not have any religious purpose.
The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman seemed to contradict the Court's prior rulings concerning the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The issue before the Court was to determine whether providing financial aid to parochial schools in the form of teacher salary supplements or providing taxpayer purchased textbooks constituted an ''establishment of religion'' as prohibited by the First Amendment.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that the language of the First Amendment, that Congress shall enact ''no law respecting an establishment of religion'' is difficult to discern. Therefore, in Lemon, the Court created a three-part process to determine if the wall of separation between church and state was broken. This process came to be known as the Lemon Rule.
Arguments
On November 8, 1972, oral arguments transpired before the Court.
In his capacity as Superintendent of Public Instruction for the state of Pennsylvania, the attorneys for David Kurtzman argued that the Pennsylvania law did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for the following reasons.
- Only certain specified secular subjects were taught.
- The Superintendent must approve textbooks and instructional materials.
- No subject matter teaching religious, moral norms, or modes of worship of any sect.
The attorneys for Alton Lemon et al. argued that the financial aspects of the Pennsylvania law, namely paying taxpayer funds to parochial school teachers, and the fact regardless of the secular nature of the classes, parochial school teachers' courses are a part of the overall religious nature of the parochial school's mission.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
In an 8-1 ruling, the United States Supreme Court determined that both the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes were an unconstitutional establishment of religion regardless of the intention of the legislatures to provide for the improvement of education. The Court found that due to the intimate connection of the Catholic church's mission and the mission of its parochial schools, it would be impossible for the state to monitor whether teachers were teaching secular or religious subjects. The laws created a ''web of entanglement'' between church and state, leading to increasing political disputes over the separation of church and state.
 |
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Burger wrote that
- ''The language of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment is at best opaque.''
- The Founders did ''not simply prohibit the establishment of a state church or a state religion.''
- ''Instead, they commanded that there should be no law respecting an establishment of religion. A law may be one respecting the forbidden objective while falling short of its total realization.''
To decide concerning the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes, Burger wrote, ''In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.''
What is the Lemon Test?
Therefore, Chief Justice Burger outlined a three-pronged procedure that the Supreme Court must undergo in determining whether a law violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
- ''Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases.''
- 1. The statute ''must have a secular legislative purpose;''
- 2. The statue's ''principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.''
- 3. ''The statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.''
This analysis became known as the Lemon Test.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
The Lemon test developed in determining the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes was not only used in the Lemon v. Kurtzman case. The Lemon test has also become a definitive part of Supreme Court decision-making concerning the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
McCreary County v. ACLU
The Supreme Court used the Lemon Test to determine that a display of the Ten Commandments in a McCreary County courthouse in Kentucky violated the First Amendment prohibition of the establishment of religion. The Court ruled that the display violated the secular purpose test, the endorsement test, and the entanglement test.
Agostini v. Felton
In 1985, the Court used two prongs of the Lemon Test in Aguilar v. Felton and Grand Rapids School District v. Ball to declare that using federal funding for public school teachers to provide remedial education to religious school students an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
Over a decade later, a group of parents in New York, joined by some New York state officials, sued to reverse the ruling in Aguilar v. Felton. They argued that the Aguilar decision had been rendered obsolete. In Agostini v. Felton. the more conservative Supreme Court agreed, 5-4. Associate Justice O'Connor writing for the majority, stated that it was difficult to satisfy the first two prongs of the Lemon Test without violating the third.
Associate Justice Souter dissented from the Court's majority in Agostini, writing that the Court's ruling would engender just the entanglement of government and religion Justice O'Connor dismissed. Associate Justice Ginsberg dissented, writing that ignoring a twelve-year precedent set by the Lemon case was inconsistent with good civil procedure.
As the Supreme Court has become more conservative in the twenty-first century, the Lemon Test has been described as ''utterly indeterminate'' by Associate Justice Thomas, and as ''a ghoul in a late-night horror movie'' by Justice Scalia. Christian and conservative groups favor dismantling the Lemon Test, while secular and non-Christian religious groups support the Lemon Test.
 |
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes that provided for public funds designated to supplement the salaries of teachers at private schools, the vast majority of which were Catholic religious schools, was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In making its ruling, the Supreme Court developed the Lemon Test, a three-part test to determine if a law violated the separation of church and state. The Court ruled that government aid to parochial school teachers would create an unconstitutional web of entanglement as the government tried to conduct oversight of the church schools. The Court wanted to establish a firm boundary between church and state.
In Agostini v. Felton, the Supreme Court ruled that satisfying the first two prongs of the Lemon Test - secular legislative intent, and neither advancing nor inhibiting the free exercise of religion - would almost certainly violate the third prong of the test, the entanglement of government and religion.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Video Transcript
Summary & Central Issue
In the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971, the Supreme Court had to decide if states could give money to religious schools to hire teachers even if it was specified that the teachers couldn't teach religion. The very first amendment in the Constitution deals with freedom of religion. The framers stated that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there-of.'
This law established the American principle of separation of church and state. But what is the boundary between religion and state? For one, the phrase doesn't exclude any interaction with the state, so it certainly isn't a firm line dividing the church and the government. But when do we know when the boundary line between church and state has been crossed?
This was the central issue before the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman. What should be the line between church and state?
The Situation
Lemon v. Kurtzman, which originated in Pennsylvania, was heard along with a similar case, Early v. Di Censo, which originated in Rhode Island. In both cases, the local governments had created programs to help religious schools. Such 'parochiaid' programs used taxpayer money to pay teachers. The teachers, however, could not teach the subject of religion within those schools. So, was this a violation of the Constitution? Alton Lemon, a local tax payer, challenged the program as violating the Constitution's separation of church and state.
Previous Cases
Prior to Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court had weighed in on the issue in two cases. First, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the court ruled that the State of New Jersey could reimburse parents for transportation to parochial schools because it helped parents, not the parochial schools.
Likewise, in Board of Education of Central School District No. 1 v. Allen, the court ruled that school boards could lend textbooks to parochial schools because it helped parents and not the organization.
However, neither case was able to establish a firm acceptable boundary for when the state has become too involved with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman sought to fix that.
The Decision
The court ruled 8-0 against the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island parochiaid programs. The court found that the government was too involved with religion in this case, a violation of the Constitution.
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the following:
'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.'
More importantly, the court established a 3-part test to determine if a program was within the boundaries of the Constitution. This test is called the Lemon Test. First, for a government program to be Constitutional, the program has to be secular or non-religious. Second, the program can't advance or inhibit religion. Third, the program can't create excessive or unnecessary intertwining of government with religion.
According to the court, the programs under question were okay under the first two parts of the test because the teachers were not allowed to teach religion. But how would the government ensure that teachers didn't teach religion? Surely, the government would have to create a program to oversee the teachers and school. And by doing so, the justices argued, the government would have to become entangled with the schools, violating the Constitution! For this reason, the programs violated part three of the Lemon Test.
Significance
This 3-part test became the rule for determining whether a law maintains the separation of church and state mandated by the First Amendment of the Constitution. But the ruling has come under fire for being self-contradictory. Indeed, one of the original judges, Justice White, noted that the only way to enforce the first two parts of the test - making sure a program was secular and didn't advance or inhibit religion - was by failing the third test, which prevented intermingling between the state and religion. In the end, you could argue that any government program with a religious organization would require some kind of intermingling.
The Lemon Test is a highly imperfect test developed from Lemon v. Kurtzman, but the Supreme Court has not yet found a better replacement. It was reaffirmed as the best interpretation in 2005 in McCreary County vs. ACLU.
Later on, in Wolman v. Walter, the court ruled that loaning textbooks to religious schools was permissible, subsidizing their field trips was not. Furthermore, in Marsh v. Chambers, the court allowed the recital of a prayer before legislative assemblies.
Lesson Summary
In the case of Lemon . Kurtzman in 1971, the Supreme Court had to decide if states could give money to religious schools to hire teachers even if it was specified that the teachers couldn't teach religion. This was difficult, because no firm precedent had yet been set, but what ultimately resulted was the Lemon Test, which was a 3-part test to determine if a program was within the boundaries of the Constitution.
There were three criteria in this test, including the requirement of the program being secular, the program can't advance or inhibit religion, and the program can't excessively intertwine government and religion. From the start, the test was considered imperfect, and there have been minor adjustment in the years since. But so far, it's been deemed the most sufficient means to keep the Constitutional separation of church and state firm.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Register to view this lesson
Are you a student or a teacher?
Unlock Your Education
See for yourself why 30 million people use Study.com
Become a Study.com member and start learning now.
Become a MemberAlready a member? Log In
BackResources created by teachers for teachers
Over 30,000 video lessons
& teaching resources‐all
in one place.
I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. It’s like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. I feel like it’s a lifeline.
Jennifer B.
Teacher
Back
Lemon v Kurtzman | Summary, Ruling & Significance
Related Study Materials
Explore our library of over 88,000 lessons
Browse by subject