Everson v Board of Education
Everson deals with a New Jersey law that allowed reimbursement of money to parents who had their children attending schools whose buses were operated by public transportation. This law extended to private schools, including Catholic schools. The question brought before the court was whether or not the aid provided to Catholic schools violated the Establishment Clause, and it was found in a 5-4 decision that no, it did not. The reasoning in the Opinion written by Justice Black was that services provided, such as fire protection, police, and bussing, when also provided for religious oriented establishments, were not any form of establishment, and are necessary and “separate and so indisputably marked off from religious function.” The main function of this case was that it incorporated the Establishment Clause to the States via the 14th Amendment, and also provided that general services could be constitutional, as they are needed for the function and safety of the public.
Lemon v Kurtzman
Lemon begins with two statutes passed in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania that allowed the state to pay for part of the secular education materials involved in non-secular teaching, i.e. some supplies and part of a non-secular teacher’s salaries, providing for the secular aspects of the education that these religious schools taught. The question brought before the Court was whether or not these statutes, that provide state funding for non-public, non-secular schools, violated the Establishment Clause. In an 8-1 decision, it was found that yes they do. In the majority opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burger, a test was constructed to determine whether or not any law or statute violated the Establishment Clause. The test, aptly named the Lemon Test, gives a three-pronged approach to deciding. Firstly, it must be asked whether or not the legislation has a valid secular purpose. Secondly, the primary effect of it can neither advance nor inhibit religion in any way. And thirdly, the legislation cannot result in any excessive entanglement of the government with religion. If any of these three were to be violated, then the law or statute is unconstitutional. Therefore, both of these statutes were found unconstitutional because they both posed an excessive entanglement between the government and religion.
Agostini v Felton
In Felton, there was a suit brought forth as a challenge to a District Court ruling that had upheld the ruling in Aguilar v Felton in 1985, which prohibited public school teachers from teaching in parochial schools. The question brought forth was whether or not public school teachers instructing in parochial schools violated the Establishment Clause. In a 5-4 decision, the majority opinion delivered by Justice O’Connor found that Aguilar v Felton was wrongly decided, and that the entrance of public school teachers into a religious-based school would lead to indoctrination of a form of state-sponsored religion, in this case non-religion. Where a big shift arises from this case is that in the majority opinion, Justice O’Connor and the majority give the third prong of the Lemon Test a new interpretation in the eyes of the court. The decision put forth that not all entanglements between government and religion should be viewed distinctly as either having positive or negative effects upon religion. This does not remove the third prong of the Lemon Test, however it does provide a new interpretation and one that can be used to say that solely because the government provides funding to the education of religion, it does not necessarily mean it is unconstitutional. As taken from the opinion, “pervasive monitoring” and “administrative cooperation” are acceptable.