Lemon V. Clauson Case Summary

Historical Setting
Alton Lemon filed the case against David Kurtzman, the acting Superintendent of the Department of Public Instruction in the State of Pennsylvania, on March 3, 1971. The Lemon decision usually refers to a combination of two cases, both concerned with State statues allowing support to private schools, Lemon v. Kurtzman and Earley v, Dicenso (403 U.S. 602 (1971)).
The Lemon v. Kurtzman case decision could not have happened prior to 1971, if other cases had not paved the way and laid the foundation. All of these Supreme Court cases have directly or indirectly affected education in some form or fashion.
The Everson v. Board of Education (330 U.S. 1 (1947)) case upheld state statutes that reimbursed the parents of parochial

school for children to have bus transportation. The Walz v. Tax Commission (397 U.S. 664 (1970)) case established the precedent barring “excessive entanglement” of the State in religious affairs. The precedents called for separation of church and state because the United States Constitution did not prohibit the establishment of a state church or state religion. However, history showed they regarded this notion with great dangers and risks.
The Board of Education v.

Allen (392 U.S. 236 (1968)) case created the third part of the Lemon test for cumulative criteria developed by the court of the Establishment Clause. All three factors became known as the Lemon test.
The Zorach v. Clauson (343 U.S. 306 (1952)) case was a New York state law that allowed schools to let some students leave school during school hours for religious instruction. The statute simply stated “the relationships between government and religious organizations are

inevitable”.
The Sherbet v. Verner (374 U.S. 398 (1963)) case pertains to permissible contracts. For example, fire inspections, building and zoning regulations, state requirements, and school-attendance laws, whereas, Board of Education v, Allen (392 U.S. 236 (1968)), acknowledged that secular and religious teaching were not necessarily so intertwined that secular textbooks, furnished to students, by the State were in fact teaching religion.
Case Summary
Both cases statutes created such an “entanglement” by involving the State in decisions about class content, teaching, and book keeping under the circumstances it would be wrong to withhold State assistance just because they are affiliated with the church, which would be interfering with the free exercise of religion.

This statute equalized the qualification for aid between public and parochial schools.
In the case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, the courts looked at the Pennsylvania law that allowed the State superintendent of schools to purchase educational services from parochial schools, which was passed through the Non-public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968. The state reimbursed the parochial school for books, materials, and teachers’ salaries as long as the courses taught were “secular” and the books were approved by the superintendent; however, it appeared as Kurtzman favored the Roman Catholic Church.
In the case, Earley v. DiCenso, the courts looked at the Rhode Island law that established a fund to pay fifteen percent salary supplement to teachers in parochial schools under specific conditions. The teachers whose salaries were being supplemented had to agree to teach secular subjects to the students as if they were in public school; therefore, they could use the same books and materials, but not give religious instructions.
Court’s

Decision
The case emphasized the Bill of Rights provisions embracing religious liberty (U.S.Const.amend.I), in addition to providing a list of state actions which violate the Establishment Clause.
The Supreme Court ruled that the passing of any state laws that establish a religious body is in direct violation of the United States Constitution; therefore, both state laws was in violation of the Establishment Clause located in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (U.S.Const.amend.I).
The verdict in the Lemon case lead to the Lemon test, which ensured that the generals population’s interest take priority within public institutions and settings and prohibited the Federal Government from becoming overly religious or involved with one particular religious affiliation, which states “first, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances not inhibits religion; third, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion”.
Discussion
Remembering history, thousands of early settlers came to this country from Europe to escape religious persecution, in which the government was enforcing a particular religion upon its people. According to, the First Amendment it prohibits any law that interferes with religious freedom. Included as part of the amendment the “Establishment Clause” was designed to prevent any governmental support of religion. One might read this to mean that the clause was meant to preclude support of one particular religion; however, it is important to conceive that the clause also prohibits affirmation of religion over non-religion.